The Akron Legal News

Physician who groped patients, prospective employees, loses appeals

ANNIE YAMSON
Special to the Legal News
Published: December 15, 2014

A panel of three judges in the 9th District Court of Appeals partially affirmed the judgment of the Lorain County Court of Common Pleas recently in the case of a physician accused of groping patients and potential employees.

The defendant, Dr. Somnath Roy, appealed his convictions for gross sexual imposition after he was found guilty of inappropriately touching women’s breasts in the course of his practice as a family physician.

Several of Roy’s patients, as well as two women who responded to job openings at his medical office, came forward with allegations that Roy had sexually abused them while acting in his capacity as a physician.

Roy waived his right to a trial by jury and the matter proceeded to a bench trial where he was acquitted of three sexual imposition counts but found guilty of six remaining counts. He was sentenced to community control.

On appeal, Roy argued that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his gross sexual imposition convictions.

Specifically, Roy contended that the state failed to present any evidence of the element of force.

The appellate panel reviewed the trial testimony and found that two women, Annette A. and Jocelyn B.H., testified they were abused after they responded to a job opening.

Both women were not informed they would need to undergo a physical examination as a condition of their employment or that they could have their own doctor conduct the exam.

Instead, they testified that Roy took them into an exam room and fondled their breasts, alleging that it was part of the exam.

Jocelyn testified that Roy asked her to come in for an interview late at night when the office was locked.

She told the trial court that the interview took a turn when Roy asked her about her credit and she mentioned that she had a Victoria’s Secret credit card.

She said Roy began to ask what type of items she bought at the lingerie store and when she would wear them.

During her physical exam, Jocelyn testified that Roy stood so close to her that she could feel he had an erection. She stated that she did not leave or ask Roy to stop because she was afraid.

Roy listened to Jocelyn’s heart with a stethoscope through her shirt but then unfastened her bra and told her to lie down. She testified that he began rubbing her stomach and “groping (her) boobs” but never explained why it would be necessary for him to touch her breasts.

She then testified that Roy remarked “how beautiful” her breasts were and then asked her to pull her pants down to check if she had any moles.

When Roy began rubbing the inside of her thighs, Jocelyn stated that she pulled her pants up and told Roy that she “really (had) to leave.”

However, Roy stated that the exam was not finished and that Jocelyn still had to take an eye exam.

According to her testimony, Jocelyn’s way out was blocked because Roy was between her and the door.

During the vision test, Roy came up behind Jocelyn, placed his arms around her and began kissing her neck.

L.S., a 15-year-old patient of Roy’s, also testified at his trial.

She said she was admitted to a hospital and ultimately treated for mononucleosis, but before her diagnosis she was afraid that she had leukemia.

At the hospital, L.S. testified that Roy reached through the sleeve of her hospital gown and groped her breasts.

“This court finds that the state met its burden on the force element of gross sexual imposition,” wrote Judge Donna Carr on behalf of the court of appeals, who noted that both Annette and Jocelyn approached Roy as a potential employer.

“By touching each woman under the guise of a physical examination, Roy ceased to be strictly a potential employer, instead, he touched each woman in his capacity as a practicing physician; a position of trust.”

The reviewing court likewise concluded that the state met its burden with regard L.S.

The panel did reverse Roy’s conviction with regard to another woman, Jolene G., because there was no evidence in the record that Roy used force or the threat of force to compel Jolene to submit.

However, the court of appeals reversed that conviction reluctantly, noting the “disparity that currently exists in the law when the relationship between an offender and a victim is one of doctor-patient.”

Judge Carr wrote that, under the Ohio Revised Code, if an offender engages in sexual contact with a victim, that offender may be charged with gross sexual imposition.

However, that statute does not criminalize sexual contact based on any special position of trust that the offender may occupy.

“Physicians play a critical role in our society,” wrote Judge Carr. “The doctor-patient relationship is one built on trust, with the patient agreeing to place his or her well-being in the hands of his or her chosen caregiver.”

Patients assume their doctor has their best interests at heart, the appellate panel noted.

“If an offender is a physician, he or she is uniquely situated to abuse the trust placed in him by virtue of his status as such,” wrote Judge Carr. “Consequently, while this court applies the law as it is written, we urge the legislature to reexamine the law in this area.”

The reviewing court went on to rule that the trial judge was in the best position to determine the credibility of the witnesses and that Roy’s convictions were supported by the manifest weight of the evidence.

It also held that the trial court erred by imposing separate sentences for allied offenses of similar import and the case was remanded for the trial court the vacate Roy’s conviction with regard to Jolene and merge his gross sexual imposition and sexual imposition convictions.

Presiding Judge Jennifer Hensal and Judge Beth Whitmore concurred.

The case is cited State v. Roy, 2014-Ohio-5186.

[Back]