Mail Fraud Trial Begins for Doctor Who Lost License Over Probe of Sex Abuse

For more than three years, ex-Tustin gynecologist Ivan C. Namihas has been shadowed by allegations that he sexually assaulted dozens of former patients in what was the largest medical abuse investigation in California history.

The complaints--160 in all--cost Namihas his license. Although prosecutors say the allegations are too old to file sex abuse charges, the 62-year-old Brazilian-born doctor goes to trial Tuesday in U.S. District Court on 10 felony counts of mail fraud.

Prosecutors have charged Namihas with fraudulent use of the mail to bill six patients for unnecessary, expensive and often painful laser surgery.

But the doctor’s defense attorneys say they will show that Namihas did not commit fraud and that he gave his patients only appropriate medical care. They also stress that despite the massive investigation of Namihas, he has never been charged with a single count of sexual assault.

Another important part of the defense strategy will be to ensure that the upcoming trial centers on the fraud allegations and nothing more, said defense attorney Paul Meyer.

“It is inflammatory and unfair to raise past unrelated issues,” Meyer said. “This proceeding should be a trial--not a witch hunt. Any reference to past problems is simply emotional and has nothing to do with this case.”

Defense attorneys have been successful in their efforts to keep the sexual abuse allegations from being introduced in the mail fraud case.

In a hearing Monday to decide what evidence will be admissible during trial, U.S. District Judge Linda H. McLaughlin quashed attempts by federal prosecutors to introduce testimony from two women who allege that Namihas sexually assaulted them during gynecological examinations and then billed them for the exams through their insurance companies.

The judge ruled that the testimony would be irrelevant to the fraud charges, and added that the evidence would be too “prejudicial” or could unfairly influence a jury against Namihas.

Namihas declined to comment about the case through his lawyers, and has previously denied any wrongdoing. The doctor, who has moved to Las Vegas, faces up to 50 years in prison and a $250,000 fine if convicted on all counts.

Namihas has filed for bankruptcy protection, but during a court hearing in August federal prosecutors said the doctor was still financially well-off. Namihas owns a $3.6-million Las Vegas apartment building and was able to post $100,000 in cash for a $1-million bail bond, prosecutors told a judge.

Meyer declined to say how Namihas currently is earning a living.

When Namihas goes on trial this week, prosecutors will contend that he used the U.S. mail system to defraud patients and submitted false bills totaling more than $8,800 to insurance companies.

Prosecutors plan to call six former patients whose complaints about Namihas’ treatments between June, 1988, and December, 1992, are the basis for the mail fraud charges, according to court documents filed by the prosecution.

Three women allege that Namihas falsely told them they had cervical cancer and that their lives were in imminent danger. One of them also alleged that the doctor falsely told her she had AIDS, according to the indictment against Namihas.

Those three and another woman accused Namihas of pressuring them into undergoing unnecessary laser surgery, the indictment states.

Prosecutors also have indicated they will introduce testimony from two male patients who say they underwent unnecessary laser surgery. One of the men has alleged that Namihas falsely told him he had viral warts, according to the indictment.

Prosecutors also plan to call six doctors as witnesses, four of whom treated patients after Namihas did, according to legal motions filed recently by the U.S. attorney’s office. The doctors will be asked to give opinions about whether Namihas correctly diagnosed and treated the patients.

Two other doctors, who have gone over Namihas’ billings of patients and insurance companies, will be called to testify about whether they found any evidence of overbilling or false billing, according to court documents.

Chief Assistant U.S. Atty. Jean Kawahara, whose office is prosecuting the case, declined to comment on past controversies involving Namihas, but said the trial is important because it sends a message warning the medical profession against abusing patients.

“Subjecting patients to medical treatment for purposes of fraudulently billing their insurance companies won’t be tolerated,” Kawahara said.

Meyer said Namihas’ defense will rely, in part, on lab results and medical reports to prove that the care he provided was justified. He declined to give further details about defense strategy.

“The issues are simple,” Meyer said. “Namely, was the treatment within the range of appropriate medical care? We expect to prove it conclusively. When the actual facts come out, we expect that reason will prevail.”

In complaints to the California Medical Board in early 1992, 160 former patients accused Namihas of fondling, masturbating and otherwise sexually abusing them during pelvic examinations as far back as the late 1960s. At the time, state Deputy Atty. Gen. Tom Lazar, who represented Namihas’ patients before the board, said that the Namihas case dwarfed all previous medical sexual abuse cases “just by the sheer viciousness of the acts and the number of victims.”

Sixty-nine former patients gave sworn statements to the medical board that were the basis for its decision to revoke his license after a half-hour administrative hearing that the gynecologist did not attend. During the hearing, state prosecutors called Namihas a “predator in a white coat.”

But shortly afterward, the Orange County district attorney and state attorney general’s offices announced they would not press sexual abuse charges against Namihas. Besides statute of limitations problems with many of the cases, prosecutors concluded there was a lack of evidence to corroborate the patient complaints.

Several patients were unwilling to testify against Namihas and prosecutors said the case had been weakened because most of the alleged victims did not lodge formal complaints at the time of the incidents.

Some of the women who filed complaints and their attorneys now say they are looking forward to the doctor’s fraud trial.

“Even though the underlying sexual misconduct complaints of the women will not be heard, there should be at least some small satisfaction that Dr. Namihas must answer in a court of law to serious felony charges,” said attorney Gloria Allred, who represented one of Namihas’ patients in a civil suit that is scheduled for trial April 27.

John Rosenbaum, an attorney for another of Namihas’ former patients, said: “I think this trial is wonderful. I hope that the wishes of all the women who he gave so much misery to comes back to him tenfold.”

Rosenbaum’s client, Stacy Crumpler of Huntington Beach, was 19 when she sought medical care from Namihas. She reached an out-of-court settlement with the doctor over a civil suit in 1993 in which she accused him of performing unnecessary surgery.

Because the judge has ruled that the sexual abuse allegations are inadmissible, the only remaining avenue for introducing the complaints during trial would be as rebuttal testimony if Namihas or character witnesses for the defense took the stand to describe him as an exemplary doctor, according to legal motions recently filed by the prosecution.

The allegations also could be presented in court if Namihas is convicted. Upon conviction, there is no limit on evidence that can be presented to help the judge decide on a sentence, Kawahara said.

Shirley Corbin, a Namihas patient in the early 1970s who said she was subjected to sexual harassment and unwanted advances, has been following the mail fraud case closely.

Corbin of Santa Ana was one of the patients who lodged a complaint with the state medical board. She attended Monday’s court hearing with her husband, James, and she plans to attend the entire trial.

She said she is disappointed that the allegations of sexual abuse may never be heard in a criminal court.

“But on the other hand, all I want is for him to go to prison, and I don’t care how he gets there,” Corbin said. “I don’t think I will be healed until I know he’s in prison--until it is over.”