Deliberations Begin in Namihas Mail Fraud Case

Calling ex-Tustin gynecologist Ivan C. Namihas a “crook in a white coat,” a federal prosecutor urged jurors in the doctor’s fraud trial to use common sense in deciding whether Namihas falsely told patients they had cancer to get money from them.

“He didn’t rob people at the point of a gun,” said Assistant U.S. Atty. Jonathan Shapiro in his closing arguments. “His weapon was fear. His patients put their trust in him and he broke that trust. He frightened them and he stole money from them. And that is fraud.”

Namihas’ defense attorney, Paul Meyer, told jurors that they must focus on the details of the patients’ medical conditions, which he said prove that all of them needed some kind of medical care.

“Look at the paper trail,” Meyer said. “The lab test results verify these ladies needed treatment.”

Namihas, the object of the largest medical-abuse investigation in state history, is charged in U.S. District Court with 10 counts of mail fraud. Prosecutors allege that the 62-year-old doctor fraudulently used the mail to defraud six patients and their insurers by performing unnecessary, expensive and often painful laser surgery.

After the attorneys’ arguments, jurors deliberated for several hours. They are to continue deliberations Monday.

Namihas has admitted, and several doctors and lab tests have verified, that none of his patients had cancer, though some might have had viral warts or precancerous conditions. Experts have also testified that laser surgery is not an appropriate treatment for cancer, though at the time Namihas was treating the patients in question, between 1988 and 1992, it was acceptable, even recommended for burning off precancerous cells.

Several of Namihas’ former patients, their husbands and two former employees have testified that Namihas told patients they had cancer or AIDS and needed laser surgery. Later tests and examinations by other doctors showed they did not.

Among those who took the witness stand during the trial was a 23-year-old woman who testified that Namihas told her she had cervical cancer, that she might never have children, and that she could die unless he treated her. Another woman and her husband testified that Namihas told them that the woman had cervical cancer and that her husband might have caught penile cancer from her.

But Meyer said patients might have misunderstood Namihas when he used terms like “cancer of the cervix in situ” or “dysplasia,” and thought he was telling them they had cancer, when in fact he was telling them they had conditions that could lead to cancer.

“The government is asking you to convict a person based on a part of a conversation five years ago that is taken out of context,” he told jurors. “But in order to convict, you need the whole thing.”