31 Former Patients Sue New Jersey OB-GYN Practice, Say Warning Signs Were Missed for Years

Reviewed by Survivor Justice Alliance · Updated 2026-08-02

What the 31 women allege

The civil complaint, filed July 30, 2026 in the Superior Court of New Jersey in Mercer County, describes a pattern of conduct that the plaintiffs say continued for more than a decade. The women, all former patients of a longtime obstetrician-gynecologist who practiced at Delaware Valley OBGYN and Infertility Group from the 1990s until 2024, allege he engaged in inappropriate touching during exams, performed procedures they say were medically unnecessary, and subjected them to treatments they describe as needlessly painful.

According to the complaint, patients often had no way to know whether what happened during an exam was medically appropriate, which the lawsuit says allowed the alleged conduct to continue across a large number of patients over a long period without being questioned.

Why the practice itself is a defendant, not just the doctor

The lawsuit does not stop at the individual physician. It also names Delaware Valley OBGYN and Infertility Group directly, arguing the practice did not adequately safeguard the women in its care even though the doctor had worked there for roughly three decades. The complaint asserts 13 separate causes of action against the two defendants, ranging from corporate negligence and medical malpractice to intentional harm and privacy claims, along with an allegation under the state's anti-discrimination statute.

That combination of claims reflects a strategy common to institutional abuse cases: holding the organization that employed the accused person responsible for the environment that allowed alleged misconduct to continue, not only pursuing the individual directly involved.

How the case became public before the lawsuit

The lawsuit follows action already taken by New Jersey's State Board of Medical Examiners, which suspended the doctor's license in 2024 after a hearing into allegations of predatory sexual misconduct during patient exams. That regulatory action, which came before any of the current civil claims were filed, gave some of the women involved a public signal that their individual experiences may not have been isolated.

Some of the plaintiffs have also reported the alleged conduct to police, according to the complaint, though no criminal charges had been filed as of the lawsuit's filing. The civil case is being brought by a Pennsylvania-based law firm that focuses on institutional sexual abuse litigation, and it seeks compensation for the alleged harm along with a public accounting of what the practice knew.

Attorneys for the women say the number of plaintiffs involved, spanning decades of the doctor's career at the same practice, points to an institutional gap rather than a single lapse in judgment. They argue that a medical group has an ongoing duty to monitor patient complaints and staff conduct, and that a large volume of similar accounts from unrelated patients over so many years should have prompted an internal review long before any regulator became involved.

What Patients Should Know About Suing a Medical Practice

Abuse by a medical provider raises legal questions that differ from other institutional settings, since patients often have no way to know in the moment whether a procedure is appropriate. Here are the basics survivors frequently ask about first.

1. A medical license suspension is not the same as compensation: A state board can suspend a provider's license for misconduct, but that action alone does not compensate patients; a separate civil claim is usually required.
2. The practice, not just the provider, can be liable: When a group employed a provider for years, patients can argue the organization failed to supervise or investigate complaints, creating its own legal exposure.
3. Multiple plaintiffs can strengthen a case: A large number of patients describing a similar pattern can help establish that a provider's conduct was routine rather than an isolated incident.
4. Medical necessity can become a central legal question: Whether a procedure or exam was medically necessary is often reviewed by outside medical experts as part of a civil case.
5. A criminal investigation is not required to file a civil suit: Patients can pursue a civil claim for damages even if police have not filed criminal charges.
6. State reporting to a medical board can support other patients: Reporting concerning conduct to a state medical board can trigger a broader investigation that surfaces other affected patients.

Related