California AG complaint accuses Sacramento surgeon of sexual misconduct, gross negligence
A Sacramento-based colorectal surgeon licensed in California for nearly two decades has been formally accused of sexual misconduct, gross negligence and other unprofessional conduct involving multiple patients, according to a recent filing by the state attorney general’s office.
The written complaint, signed by Medical Board of California Executive Director William Prasifka and filed last week by Attorney General Rob Bonta, seeks a hearing to revoke or suspend the licenses of Dr. Ranganath Pathak.
The complaint alleges Pathak instructed one patient “to purchase an adult sex toy and practice having orgasms,” then “report back to him how many orgasms she achieved.” He then allegedly gave the patient a vaginal exam without her oral or written consent.
It alleges that he touched a different patient’s breasts “for at least three minutes,” with the patient reporting there was “no specific pattern to what (he) was doing.”
The complaint also alleges that Pathak did not keep adequate records showing whether he had a chaperone in the room during exams and procedures.
The filing gives Pathak’s business address as that of Sacramento Colon & Rectal Surgery Medical Group, a practice with its main office in midtown. According to its website, Pathak is one of four physicians making up the practice, which has additional offices in Carmichael and Roseville.
Pathak has not responded to The Sacramento Bee’s request for comment. A clerk at Pathak’s Roseville office who took a message for the surgeon Monday morning said he was with a patient at that time.
The complaint includes summaries of responses Pathak reportedly gave to a state investigator who interviewed the surgeon last fall about his interactions with three patients.
According to the complaint, Pathak denied to the investigator that he had given the vaginal and breast examinations in question, but admitted to shoddy recordkeeping, as well as occasionally hugging patients.
Pathak was issued his physician’s and surgeon’s certificate in 2002, and it is set to expire Sept. 30 of this year unless renewed, according to California Department of Consumer Affairs records.
Websites for Sutter Health and Dignity Health showed Pathak as being affiliated with the two local health providers, meaning he has privileges to practice at their hospital facilities.
“We take all allegations of abuse seriously,” a Sutter Health spokesperson said in an emailed response to The Bee. “This physician is an independently practicing physician. The Sutter Health facilities where this physician has privileges to practice are currently investigating these allegations and taking appropriate steps to help keep patients safe.”
A Dignity Health spokesman wrote: “The care and safety of our patients is our top priority, and while the physician is not employed by us, we take these allegations very seriously. We are not yet in receipt of the complaint filed with the Medical Board of California, but we have launched an internal investigation and will take appropriate action, as needed.”
Katrina Saleen, a Sacramento-based attorney representing one of the patients, told The Bee she believes there may be additional patients with similar cases who may wish to come forward.
Saleen’s client filed a civil suit against Pathak in Sacramento Superior Court last December, seeking damages for sexual assault and other allegations, prior to the state medical board’s filing.
Patients allege exams without consent, fondling and more
The complaint from the medical board’s top executive, filed May 4, describes interactions involving three different patients between 2018 and early 2020. The patients’ identities are redacted, and they are referred to as Patient A, Patient B and Patient C.
According to the complaint, Patient A underwent surgery to remove a rectal mass in October 2016, then continued to see Pathak regularly for follow-up care.
At her last such visit in September 2019, Patient A became uncomfortable after noticing there was no chaperone in the room and recalling that there hadn’t been one at the previous one or two visits.
“Patient A also noticed respondent became friendlier towards her, hugging her when she left his office,” the complaint says.
The patient had been experiencing some post-surgery symptoms, according to the filing.
“At the appointment, respondent asked Patient A whether she was experiencing any issues during sexual intercourse,” the complaint reads. “Patient A described an incident that was causing her stress. Respondent followed up by asking her whether her concerns were due to emotional or physical issues. Patient A was adamant she did not have any physical issues.
“Respondent then advised Patient A to purchase an adult sex toy and practice having orgasms. He even recommended a specific toy. Respondent told Patient A to report back to him how many orgasms she achieved.”
After this conversation, Pathak “then told her he was going to perform an exam on her,” and — after the patient remained silent, giving no response — proceeded to conduct a vaginal examination that Patient A reported as feeling “really different” from previous vaginal exams she’d experienced, according to the complaint.
The patient reported that, after trying to quickly leave the room following the exam, Pathak “reached over to hug her,” then “placed his left hand on her breast and did not move it.”
“Patient A looked at respondent and noticed he was looking down at her breasts,” the complaint reads.
Pathak denied to a Department of Consumer Affairs investigator that he’d conducted a vaginal exam, and said he could not specifically remember having the conversation about sex toys or orgasms, but “admitted that if Patient A had discussed incontinence during sexual intercourse, he would have given advice about using a sex toy,” the complaint reads.
He also insisted to the investigator, who interviewed him in August, that he had a chaperone present during Patient A’s appointment, according to the complaint, but said that at that time, “it was not his custom” to document chaperones’ names.
Pathak denied hugging Patient A but “admitted to occasionally hugging his patients,” the complaint continues.
Proctologist allegedly ‘stuck his hand down into her bra’
In January 2020, Pathak treated Patient B for a bowel issue and performed an examination, according to the complaint. A medical assistant was in the room during that procedure, the complaint says.
After the examination, “Patient B got dressed and then went to Respondent’s office where it was just the two of them.”
“Patient B thought her appointment was over,” the complaint reads. “Respondent continued the appointment by questioning Patient B about her history with breast lumps.”
The patient allegedly told Pathak that she underwent breast exams every six months and that everything had been normal. Pathak then allegedly told Patient B to let him see her breasts.
The surgeon then touched the breast that Patient B said previously had lumps, over her clothes, and said he could not feel anything, the complaint alleges.
“Respondent then pulled Patient B’s dress open at the neck and stuck his hand down into her bra,” the complaint reads.
“Patient B heard her collar rip as respondent’s hand went down into her bra. … Patient B noted there was no specific pattern to what respondent was doing.”
The patient alleges that Pathak at one point remarked, “Oh yeah, they’re really heavy, huh,” and estimated he felt her breasts “for at least three minutes,” the complaint says.
The complaint goes on to say Pathak, during the same August interview with the state investigator, denied performing a breast examination on Patient B.
For Patient C, the complaint alleges that Pathak in January 2019 performed a procedure on the patient but “did not explain the nature of the procedure he would be conducting.” The patient reported the procedure was painful.
“Patient C stated that immediately after the procedure she did not feel well, hyperventilated and was in a cold sweat,” the complaint continues.
The complaint alleges that Patient C’s medical chart “did not indicate respondent obtained a written or oral informed consent from Patient C for the procedure performed on her.”
Pathak reportedly told the investigator, in response to whether he obtained consent, that “when they come back for follow-up, for the procedure itself, they are informed that they are coming back voluntarily for the procedure,” the complaint says.
The AG’s complaint lists five causes for discipline, accusing Pathak of sexual misconduct and gross negligence for his alleged actions involving patients A and B; as well as repeated negligent acts, inadequate recordkeeping and unprofessional conduct for his interactions with all three patients.
The complaint requests a hearing, after which the medical board would be asked to issue a decision revoking or suspending Pathak’s physician’s and surgeon’s certificate; revoking or suspending his authority to supervise physician’s assistants; and taking any other disciplinary action deemed necessary.
As of Wednesday morning, no hearing date had been set.
