ORANGE COUNTY PERSPECTIVE : Complaints About a Complaint Process

The guilt or innocence of gynecologist Ivan C. Namihas, who has been accused of sexually molesting many women patients, has yet to be determined. But something is terribly wrong with a state review system that allowed complaints filed against the Tustin physician over many years to receive so little attention.

In December--years after an initial formal complaint had been filed with the California Medical Board in Santa Ana--the board charged Namihas with gross negligence and sexual misconduct based on allegations by five women relating to incidents they said occurred between 1968 and 1988. Also, the Orange County district attorney is investigating a criminal complaint brought by one woman to Tustin police.

As publicity has increased, dozens of women have come forward to file similar complaints against the doctor, in practice for 30 years. By last week’s end, Namihas was accused of misconduct with at least 140 patients, and a Superior Court judge granted a temporary restraining order prohibiting him from practicing.

Why wasn’t there a thorough review of complaints against Namihas filed with the medical board in 1982, 1987 and again in 1990? Why didn’t authorities detect a pattern? Is this another case in which women simply were not believed? Or was the failure due to the problem of reviewing physicians’ behavior? These questions must be answered.

The California Medical Board acknowledges that in the past complaints against physicians have not always been processed as well as they should have been. It says that legislation passed in 1990 has substantially reformed the review system and that the process is more organized now. But Robert C. Fellmeth, director of the Center for Public Interest Law at the University of San Diego Law School, whose criticisms of the medical board helped along those reforms, says the system still falls far short.

The center is proposing further reforms, including appointment of a monitor to evaluate the discipline procedures of the medical board. A similar monitor was installed to assess the California State Bar’s disciplinary procedures and, as a result, California lawyers are now held to higher standards.

The medical profession could benefit from closer scrutiny. The fate of incompetent or criminal doctors must not be left with other doctors who may be either unable or unwilling to judge a colleague’s behavior.