Athletes deal with trials and tribulations each day, from injuries to intense expectations. On top of all that, they shouldn’t have to face sexual abuse in a medical setting, but many do. Sexual abuse in a sports medicine setting is far more common than one would think, because the role gives doctors unusual access and authority over patients they’re supposed to treat. When athletes experience sexual abuse by team doctors, they can feel violated and unsure of what to do next. But they should know there are people in their corner, and avenues they can take to pursue justice. Let’s discuss them here.
Sexual abuse by team doctors isn’t incredibly common, but it happens more than people think, and it often goes unreported or uninvestigated. Take the case of Larry Nassar, who sexually abused girls and young women for years while working in elite sports before the full scope became public. His case drew national attention because of the number of survivors, the institutions involved, and the length of time the abuse continued before meaningful action followed.
But those fairly high-profile cases came out of major sports systems with national visibility. Many other athletes face abuse in quieter settings and never get the same public attention because the allegations involve a smaller school, a lesser-known club, a local program, or a doctor with far less public scrutiny. Because so many cases stay hidden, it’s difficult to measure the true scope of sexual abuse by team doctors, but public cases and survivor reports make clear that it does happen.
So, why does sexual abuse by team doctors happen? These figures commit abuse for many of the same reasons anyone else does: entitlement, access, and a belief they won’t be stopped.
But certain features of sports culture make it much easier for a team doctor to perpetuate this kind of abuse than your average physician. The role comes with built-in authority, repeated physical contact, and an environment where athletes are expected to comply. Those conditions can make misconduct look medical when it isn’t. They can also make athletes question themselves instead of the person crossing the line.
The role of team doctor carries status, and athletes are taught to respect it. When a doctor speaks with certainty, an athlete may assume the exam or touching has a medical purpose, even when it doesn’t. Abuse becomes easier to hide when the person causing harm already has built-in credibility.
Sports medicine creates repeated contact behind closed doors. An athlete may see the same doctor during treatment, rehab, travel, or follow-up care. Repetition can normalize conduct that should never feel routine. An abusive doctor can use proximity and familiarity to push boundaries without drawing immediate attention.
Athletes can feel enormous pressure to stay silent if speaking up could put their future at risk. A young woman may worry a complaint will affect her standing on the team, her scholarship, her playing time, or her path forward in the sport. That can keep athletes quiet even when they know something was wrong.
Abuse lasts longer when the adults in charge fail to intervene. A school or sports organization may miss warning signs, dismiss complaints, or protect its own reputation before protecting athletes. Once that happens, a doctor can keep operating in the same space without real scrutiny.
If you feel like you’ve experienced sexual abuse by a team doctor, what options do you have if you want to pursue justice? The answer is more expansive than many people expect, but you should speak with a sexual abuse lawyer early so you can evaluate your options and protect yourself from retaliation, pressure, or attempts to discredit you. Below are some of the most common avenues for survivors. A lawyer can help you decide which path fits the facts of your case.
A civil lawsuit is a private claim brought in court for the harm caused by the abuse. It can be filed against the doctor and, in the right case, against an institution connected to what happened. This route focuses on proving liability and seeking financial recovery for the survivor’s losses. It moves through the civil court system, where both sides exchange evidence and argue the case before a settlement or trial.
A criminal case begins when the abuse is reported to law enforcement and prosecutors review the facts to decide whether charges should be filed. The government controls this process, not the survivor. If charges are brought, the case can move through investigation, formal prosecution, and court proceedings. Its purpose is to determine whether the doctor committed a crime and should face criminal penalties.
A licensing complaint is a report made to the medical board that oversees the doctor’s license. This process asks the board to examine whether the doctor violated professional rules or ethical standards. The board can gather records, review the allegations, and conduct its own inquiry. If it finds misconduct, it can discipline the doctor’s license.
An institutional claim focuses on whether an organization played a role in allowing the abuse to happen or continue. The case examines what the institution knew about the doctor, how it responded to warning signs, and whether it failed to protect athletes in its care. This type of claim centers on the organization’s conduct rather than only the doctor’s actions. It can be brought alongside a case against the doctor or as part of the same lawsuit.
OBGYN sexual abuse in a medical setting, while uncommon, is still more widespread than many people would think, and it can have lasting impacts on the women who experience it.
If you’re an athlete that’s experienced abuse at the hands of a team doctor and want to seek justice, you need a skilled lawyer on your side. Tamara N. Holder has worked for decades to help survivors in similar situations. With decades of experience in doctor sexual abuse cases, Holder can evaluate your situation and help you take action. Reach out today for compassionate, personalized, trauma-informed support as you fight for accountability.
When something happens in a medical exam room, it can feel hard to explain to someone who wasn’t there. The provider may call it part of the exam. The patient may know it crossed a line. So where does that leave you? Proving abuse in a medical setting starts with showing the difference between proper care and conduct that never should’ve happened.
The burden of proof is the legal duty to prove a claim. In a civil abuse case, it falls on the person bringing the case. That means the survivor has the responsibility to present enough evidence to show that the abuse occurred and that the accused person or organization should be held legally responsible.
Civil cases do not require proof beyond a reasonable doubt. That standard applies in criminal cases. Many civil cases use a lower standard called a preponderance of the evidence, which means the claim is more believable than the opposing side’s version of events.
Medical abuse can be hard to prove because it often happens in private exam rooms, behind closed doors, and during appointments where some physical contact is expected. The provider may claim the exam had a medical purpose, while the patient knows it crossed a line.
That can leave survivors trying to explain something deeply personal without evidence. The power imbalance adds another layer of difficulty to proving abuse by a doctor. Doctors, nurses, therapists, and other providers hold authority in the room, and medical records may not reflect what actually happened.
Some common challenges include:
Evidence in a medical abuse case should help answer a few basic questions: what happened, where it happened, who was involved, and whether the conduct had any real medical purpose. A survivor doesn’t need one perfect piece of proof. These cases are usually built through several forms of evidence that work together. Below are some of the most common types of evidence used to support these claims.
Medical records can show the appointment date, the provider’s name, the reason for the visit, and the care documented in the chart. The chart may also show whether the provider wrote down a reason for the exam.
For example, a patient may have gone in for a skin concern. If the provider performed an intimate exam, the record can show whether the chart explains why that exam fit the visit. If the notes skip over the exam or describe something different from what the patient remembers, that gap can become important.
The provider controls what goes into the chart, so records don’t always tell the full story. Still, they give a lawyer a starting point for comparing the provider’s version with the survivor’s account.
The survivor’s own account is evidence. A clear account can describe what the provider said, what the provider did, where the patient was positioned, and whether the provider explained the exam before touching began.
Consent can become a key issue here. Did the provider ask before starting the exam? Did the provider explain the medical reason? Did the provider stop when the patient showed discomfort? Did the provider use sexual comments or personal remarks?
Those details can show the difference between a proper exam and abuse disguised as care.
Chaperone information can show whether anyone else entered the room during an intimate exam. Many medical offices have policies for sensitive exams. If the provider ignored those policies, the case may raise stronger questions about professional conduct.
A survivor may remember whether a nurse came in, whether the provider offered a chaperone, or whether the provider closed the door and continued alone. The office may also have records showing staff assignments or room activity.
If a chaperone was present, that person may have seen or heard something relevant. If no chaperone was present when one should’ve been offered, that absence can also support the allegation.
A witness doesn’t need to see the abuse happen to add useful information. Many survivors tell someone soon after the appointment. A text conversation, phone call, or in-person conversation can show when the survivor first described what happened.
A witness may also remember the survivor’s condition after the appointment. They may have seen the survivor crying, shaking, angry, withdrawn, or trying to understand what had just happened.
Those statements can support timing and consistency. They can also push back against claims that the survivor invented the allegation later.
Prior complaints against the same provider can show a pattern. Another patient may have reported similar conduct by the same doctor during a similar type of appointment.
A pattern can challenge the idea that the survivor misunderstood a normal exam. It can also raise questions about the facility’s knowledge. If the clinic knew about earlier allegations and kept placing patients with the same provider, the case may involve the organization too.
Prior complaints can be hard for a survivor to find alone. A lawyer can look for those records through the legal process.
An expert can explain what proper care should’ve looked like during the appointment. Medical abuse cases can involve questions about consent, documentation, exam procedures, and professional boundaries.
An expert may review the records and compare the provider’s conduct to accepted medical practice. If the exam didn’t match the reason for the visit, the expert can explain why. If the provider skipped a required step, the expert can point that out in plain language.
This gives a judge or jury a way to understand why the conduct had no proper medical purpose.
Proving medical setting abuse can be difficult, but difficult doesn’t mean impossible. The right legal team can look closely at the appointment, compare the provider’s conduct with accepted medical standards, and gather the proof needed to pursue accountability.
For that reason, people seeking justice against their abuser should reach out to an experienced medical abuse attorney. Tamara N. Holder is an activist attorney with years of experience handling sexual abuse cases. Holder is direct, compassionate, and ready to fight with you. Give her office a call today to talk through what happened.
Have you ever walked into a routine skin appointment and later caught yourself replaying part of it in your head? Maybe something felt off, but you pushed that feeling aside because the person in the room was a doctor. That happens more than people admit.
Dermatology exams can involve private areas in limited situations, but that doesn’t mean every kind of touch is acceptable. There’s a line between legitimate care and conduct that has no medical place in the exam room. When touch crosses the line, patients deserve clear answers about what happened and why it wasn’t okay.
An intimate exam should have a clear medical reason. If you came in for acne, a rash, a mole check, hair loss, or another skin concern, there usually isn’t a reason for a dermatologist to examine your vagina, vulva, buttocks, or breasts during that visit.
A doctor can’t treat intimate touching like it belongs in every appointment. If you were told to undress more than necessary or touched in intimate areas during a skin visit that didn’t call for it, that falls outside the scope of legitimate dermatology care.
Even when a dermatologist does need to examine a private area, that doesn’t give them permission to touch wherever they want. The contact should stay limited to the specific spot connected to the skin concern. If the doctor touched nearby intimate areas that had nothing to do with the condition being checked, or kept touching longer than needed to inspect the issue, that steps outside proper care.
A doctor should explain an intimate exam before it starts, not while it’s already happening and not after the fact. You should be told what area needs to be checked, why that area is relevant, and what the doctor is going to do. When a dermatologist touches a private area without giving that explanation first, the problem isn’t just poor communication. It can mean you never had a real chance to consent to what was happening.
A chaperone can help protect patients during an intimate exam, especially when the doctor needs to inspect a private area. If a dermatologist examined your breasts, genitals, buttocks, or another intimate area without offering a chaperone or without explaining that one could be present, that can be an important warning sign. The lack of another person in the room can make misconduct easier and can leave a patient with no witness to what happened.
A dermatologist should expose only the area that needs to be examined and only for as long as that exam takes. If you were left uncovered while the doctor kept talking, stepped away, wrote notes, or moved on to other parts of the visit, that wasn’t part of proper care. Keeping a patient exposed without a medical reason can be part of the misconduct itself. It strips away dignity and makes it easier to normalize conduct that had no legitimate purpose.
A dermatologist might need limited background information when a skin condition affects an intimate area, but that doesn’t open the door to personal questions with no medical purpose. If the doctor asked about your sexual habits, partners, preferences, or activity during an appointment where that information wasn’t needed, that can be a sign the conversation crossed the line.
Those questions can feel hard to challenge in the moment because they’re coming from a doctor. Still, medical authority does not make invasive curiosity appropriate. When personal sexual questions are disconnected from the condition being examined, they’re not part of legitimate dermatology care.
An exam room isn’t a place for sexual jokes, suggestive comments, or personal remarks that turn your body into the subject of entertainment. A dermatologist should keep the conversation professional and tied to your care. When the doctor makes a joke with sexual undertones, laughs about an intimate area of your body, or says something meant to test how much you’ll tolerate, that crosses a line. It changes the appointment from medical care to inappropriate conduct.
Clinical photos should have a specific medical purpose. A dermatologist shouldn’t take pictures of your breasts, genitals, buttocks, or other intimate areas unless the image is actually needed for diagnosis, treatment, or a documented medical reason. If photos were taken without a clear explanation, without asking for permission first, or in a way that felt casual or unnecessary, that crosses a line.
A doctor shouldn’t shut down questions about an intimate exam. If you asked why something was necessary and got brushed off or told to stop asking, that supports the concern that the doctor didn’t want to justify the conduct. Professional care leaves room for questions. Misconduct depends on keeping patients quiet.
Follow-up visits should connect to treatment, test results, healing, or a clear need to recheck a skin condition. A problem comes up when a dermatologist tells you to come back for repeated intimate exams without explaining what still needs to be evaluated. If the same private area kept getting examined with no clear diagnosis, no change in care, and no medical reason for repeated contact, that can point to conduct outside legitimate treatment.
If part of that appointment has stuck with you, don’t brush it aside just because it happened in a medical office. People second-guess themselves all the time after dermatology exams, especially when the doctor acted like everything was normal. But normal medical care doesn’t include conduct that crosses personal and professional boundaries. When touch crosses the line, you have every right to take that seriously.
If you're suspicious your dermatologist crossed a line at one of your appointments and want to talk to a professional about a potential claim, contact Tamara N. Holder today. Tamara N. Holder and her team are a group of doctor sexual assault lawyers determined to help people dealing with abuse by medical professionals like dermatologists. We can be your voice, your support system, your advocate as you navigate what happened and seek accountability and justice.
Coming forward after experiencing medical sexual abuse is one of the hardest decisions a person can make. The reasons survivors stay silent are real, complex, and often misunderstood by people who haven't lived it. Victims of abuse don't pursue legal action for a lot of different reasons, and none of those reasons make what happened to them any less serious or any less worthy of justice. Understanding those barriers is the first step toward breaking them down.
Doctors and other healthcare providers hold positions of trust, and that dynamic can make victims feel like their word won't hold up against a professional's. When someone in a white coat denies wrongdoing, institutions often back them up. That fear of not being believed, especially against someone with credentials and a clean reputation, stops a lot of survivors from ever coming forward in the first place.
Medical sexual abuse doesn't always look the way people expect abuse to look. Some survivors spend a long time questioning whether what happened to them was actually wrong, or whether it was just an uncomfortable but legitimate procedure. When an abuser frames their actions as routine or necessary, it creates real confusion. That confusion is a barrier. Many victims don't pursue legal action because they genuinely aren't sure they have a case, even when they do.
Shame is one of the most common reasons survivors stay silent. Medical sexual abuse often involves deeply personal parts of the body and deeply personal circumstances, which makes talking about it feel impossible for a lot of people. Victims frequently internalize what happened as something to hide rather than something that was done to them. That shame, even though it belongs entirely to the abuser, ends up protecting the abuser instead.
For many victims, the abuser isn't a stranger. They may be a long-time physician, a specialist they still depend on, or someone connected to their broader medical care team. Coming forward can feel like it puts access to healthcare at risk. Victims sometimes worry about professional retaliation, damaged relationships with providers, or being labeled as difficult patients. Those concerns are real, and they keep a lot of survivors from taking action.
Most people have never been told what legal options exist for survivors of medical sexual abuse. Without that knowledge, the legal system feels inaccessible. Victims may not know that civil claims exist separately from criminal cases, that there are attorneys who handle exactly these situations, or that they may have more time to file than they think. When the path forward is invisible, most people don't take it.
Pursuing legal action means talking about what happened, repeatedly and in detail. For survivors already managing the emotional weight of abuse, that prospect is genuinely painful. Depositions, interviews, and legal proceedings require revisiting experiences that many victims have worked hard to process or push down. The fear of being retraumatized by the legal process itself is a valid reason many survivors choose not to move forward.
Medical sexual abuse is a betrayal by someone in a position of care. That betrayal doesn't stay contained to one person. It often spreads into a broader distrust of institutions, including legal ones. Survivors from marginalized communities, including women and LGBTQ+ individuals, frequently have additional reasons to distrust systems that have historically ignored or dismissed them. Expecting justice from a system that hasn't always shown up for you is a hard ask.
Abuse thrives in silence, and isolation keeps that silence in place. Many survivors don't have people in their lives who understand what they've been through or who can point them toward help. Without community, support, or access to clear information, the idea of navigating a legal case alone feels overwhelming. That sense of being alone in it, with no roadmap and no one to call, is one of the most common reasons survivors never take the first step.
Women and LGBTQ+ individuals already navigate systems that frequently dismiss or minimize their experiences. That reality shapes how survivors assess their chances before they ever speak to an attorney. If someone has already been ignored by a doctor who brushed off their concerns, or disrespected by a provider who made assumptions about their identity, expecting a courtroom to treat them differently is a big leap. That history of being overlooked makes the risk of coming forward feel much higher than the potential reward.
Legal action costs money, and most survivors don't know that many attorneys who handle these cases work on a contingency basis, meaning no upfront cost and no fees unless the case wins. Without that knowledge, the assumption is that justice requires money they don't have. Medical bills, lost wages, and the general financial toll that trauma takes on a person's life can already put victims in a tough spot. The belief that legal help is unaffordable stops a lot of people before they even make a phone call.
Every survivor responds to abuse in a different way, but the barriers to legal action are real and deeply personal. A person may know something was wrong and still feel unable to act on it. Fear can stop them. Shame can stop them. Confusion can stop them. Distrust in medical and legal systems can stop them too. The reasons victims of abuse don't pursue legal action reflect the reality many survivors face after being harmed by someone in a position of authority.
It can be difficult to make the decision to pursue legal action against an abuser, especially if that person is respected and protected by the systems around them. But if you choose to pursue your case, Tamara N Holder is a women's rights law firm that specializes in sexual abuse cases and can help you pursue the justice you deserve. Our team of experienced and compassionate advocates will listen to your story and help you understand your options. Contact us today and let’s discuss your options.
You expect a doctor to give you clear information, answer your questions, and respect your decisions. That’s the standard. So what happens when a doctor starts using pressure instead of giving you a real choice? Knowing what coercive control is and how to spot it can help you recognize when medical care crosses the line into manipulation.
Coercive control is a pattern of behavior used to dominate another person through pressure, manipulation, fear, and restriction. It doesn’t always involve physical violence. In many cases, it shows up through repeated actions that limit someone’s choices, silence their concerns, or make them feel dependent on the person in power. The goal is control.
In a medical setting, coercive control can be especially harmful because patients often depend on doctors for answers, treatment, and access to care. That gives a doctor real influence over what a patient feels able to question or refuse. When a doctor uses shame, threats, intimidation, or false information to push a patient toward a decision, that crosses a line. Consent isn’t real when it comes from pressure.
This kind of conduct can leave patients feeling trapped, confused, and afraid to speak up. It can also make someone question their own judgment, even when they know something feels wrong.
Some doctors use coercive control to keep power over a patient and steer the outcome in their favor. In a medical setting, that can show up in several specific ways:
Coercive control in a medical setting usually doesn’t start with one dramatic moment. It often shows up through repeated behavior that makes a patient feel cornered, silenced, or unable to make a real choice. A doctor may still sound calm or professional while doing it. That’s part of what makes this conduct so easy to miss at first. But there are ways to spot it. Here are some signs to watch for.
Pressure is one of the clearest warning signs. A doctor may insist that you need to agree right away, even when the situation doesn’t call for that kind of urgency. They may act irritated when you ask for time, tell you there’s no point in waiting, or push paperwork and consent forms in front of you before you’ve gotten full answers.
That kind of pressure can make a patient feel like saying no isn’t an option. Real consent requires time, information, and the freedom to refuse. If a doctor keeps pushing after you’ve asked for space to think, that’s a serious problem.
A doctor using coercive control may respond badly when you ask basic questions about risks, alternatives, side effects, or next steps. Instead of giving a clear answer, they may dodge the question, speak over you, or act like your concern isn’t worth addressing. Sometimes the response sounds impatient. Sometimes it sounds condescending.
This behavior can wear a patient down fast. After a while, some people stop asking questions because they don’t want to be talked down to again. That silence benefits the doctor, not the patient.
Some doctors pressure patients by making them feel irresponsible, selfish, dramatic, or careless. They may suggest that refusing a treatment makes you a bad patient or that asking for another opinion means you don’t respect their expertise. In more extreme cases, they may use fear to push compliance by exaggerating consequences or withholding balanced information.
That kind of language is meant to control the emotional tone of the visit. A patient who feels ashamed or scared is easier to push into agreement. Medical advice should be direct and honest, not built on intimidation.
A patient has the right to say no, ask for another provider, pause an exam, or refuse a procedure. A coercive doctor may act like those boundaries are unreasonable. They may question your judgment, become cold or hostile, or keep pressing after you’ve already made your position clear.
That response can make a person feel trapped in the room. It can also make future care harder because the patient starts expecting punishment any time they try to advocate for themselves. Respect for boundaries is a basic part of ethical care.
Control gets easier when a patient doesn’t have the full picture. A doctor may leave out important facts, present one option as the only option, or give incomplete explanations that make it harder to make an informed choice. Some patients also get told things that are flatly false in order to push them toward a decision.
A patient can’t give valid consent without accurate information. When a doctor manipulates what you know, they’re taking control of a choice that belongs to you.
Another common sign is being told that your concerns are exaggerated, emotional, confused, or not based in reality. A doctor may minimize pain, dismiss discomfort, or act like you’re creating a problem by bringing up what happened. That response can make a patient second-guess their memory and instincts.
This is especially harmful when someone already feels vulnerable. If you leave an appointment feeling confused, ashamed, and unsure whether what just happened was wrong, that reaction deserves attention.
Once you understand what coercive control is and how to spot it, it gets easier to name the behavior. If you believe your doctor is using coercive control, take steps to protect your safety. You may want to write down what happened, keep copies of records and messages, and talk with someone you trust.
From there, you may be interested in pursuing legal action in the form of a medical abuse or misconduct claim. Tamara N. Holder is a female rights lawyer with a long history of helping women seek justice against people in positions of power. If you believe you have a case, reach out to our team today and we can discuss your situation and your options. We’ll listen, stand with you, and fight for you.
Expanding Litigation Alleges Abuse and Institutional Failures; Plaintiffs Represented by Trial Attorneys Tamara Holder and Elizabeth Hanley
SEATTLE, March 25, 2026 /PRNewswire/ -- Fifty-one women have filed claims against OB/GYN Mark Mulholland and Providence-Kadlec, expanding ongoing litigation over an alleged pattern of doctor-patient sexual abuse, unnecessary surgery, and institutional failures.
The plaintiffs are represented by attorneys Tamara Holder of Tamara Holder Law and Elizabeth Hanley of Schroeter Goldmark & Bender. The lawsuits have been filed in King County Superior Court over the past year as additional individuals come forward.
The lawsuits allege Providence-Kadlec ignored decades of complaints that included alleged unnecessary pelvic exams and anal exams, forced c-sections, and unnecessary surgeries.
Attorney Hanley stated, "Each new claim reinforces the need for a thorough review of Dr. Mulholland's actions and Providence-Kadlec's institutional responses. Our focus is on ensuring every voice is heard and that systemic accountability is pursued."
Attorney Holder added, "The World Health Organization reports that up to 59 percent of women experience obstetric or gynecologic abuse, including non-consented care, verbal mistreatment, and even physical abuse. These statistics are a call to action: healthcare institutions must be held accountable when they fail to protect women and mothers."
Dr. Mulholland was employed by Providence-Kadlec from 1999 until June 2025. The Washington Medical Commission has suspended Dr. Mulholland's license to practice medicine on women as it continues its investigation into multiple patient complaints of misconduct.
Anyone who has information about Dr. Mark Mulholland or the institutions where he worked is urged to contact the legal team immediately at www.drmarkmulhollandabuse.com.
About Tamara Holder Law
Tamara Holder is an international women's rights and institutional abuse trial attorney. Her boutique practice, Tamara Holder Law, based in Chicago, focuses on sex trafficking, doctor-patient sexual abuse, and other forms of multi-plaintiff litigation. For nearly a decade, Holder was a Fox News Channel legal analyst where she created and hosted the network's only sports show. Holder has testified before Congress.
About Schroeter Goldmark & Bender
Elizabeth Hanley is a shareholder and trial attorney at Schroeter Goldmark & Bender. Founded in 1969, SGB is a nationally recognized law firm, based in Seattle, that holds companies, government agencies, and people accountable for their wrongdoing. SGB represents injured persons in asbestos and mesothelioma, catastrophic injury, brain/spinal cord injury, medical malpractice, unsafe products, wrongful death, sexual assault and harassment, as well as individual and class action employment cases.
ProPublica investigated the case against Kadlec-Providence OB/GYN Mark Mulholland - Tamara Holder Law and Schroeter Goldmark & Bender represent nearly 200 women in this litigation, having recently filed 51 lawsuits.
This story was originally published by ProPublica.
The woman, 52, lay on the exam table at a clinic in Richland, Washington. Her legs were parted and propped up.
The OB-GYN, Dr. Mark Mulholland, stood between her legs, inquiring about the woman’s sex life as he had in prior visits, she wrote in a complaint filed with Washington state health care regulators.
She said Mulholland had previously asked about her enjoyment of sex and if she had a boyfriend, a strange way to learn about a patient’s sexual activity, she thought. But this was her last checkup after her hysterectomy and the last time she expected to see Mulholland.
“Do you masturbate?” Mulholland asked the woman during their final appointment, according to her complaint.
The question shocked her. She wrote that Mulholland explained he wanted to “make sure the nerves were intact.”
Then, the woman wrote, he inserted his fingers into her vagina and pumped his hand back and forth in a way she said felt “sexual and not medical.”
“Does that hurt?” the woman said Mulholland asked her, before ending their visit by saying “the playroom is open” — a comment she interpreted as Mulholland clearing her for sexual activity.
The woman said she left the room in shock. She made her way to the parking lot of the Kadlec Clinic-Associated Physicians for Women, climbed inside her car and sat, incredulous, she said in an interview with KUOW and ProPublica. What happened felt terribly wrong, she said.
Mulholland did not respond to requests for comment for this article after being sent a detailed list of findings by email and by letter. His attorney declined to comment.
What the woman didn’t know was that by the time of her exam in February 2025, the Washington Medical Commission had already received complaints from four other women since 2022 accusing Mulholland of sexual misconduct. And yet he was allowed to keep seeing patients throughout.
The accounts related by the women, whom KUOW and ProPublica are not naming to protect their privacy, included descriptions of Mulholland touching them unnecessarily, using sexually charged language, or performing painful or seemingly sexual pelvic exams that involved moving his fingers in and out.
The commission also gathered testimony a year before the woman’s February 2025 appointment from three of Mulholland’s colleagues with their own troubling accounts. These included hearing firsthand about or observing him telling patients they had “tight” and “pretty” vaginas, touching and slapping his patients’ legs, and aggressively pulling a patient’s pants down without permission.
Washington law allows the commission to take emergency action and suspend a doctor’s license while disciplinary proceedings are pending. The law says a suspension is defensible if it’s more probable than not that the physician poses an “immediate threat to the public health and safety.”
In Mulholland’s case, the commission did not choose suspension. Instead, it issued a formal statement of charges accusing Mulholland of abuse and unprofessional conduct in April 2025 — more than a year after the commission’s investigator submitted her reports on two of the complaints for review and 11 months after Mulholland was offered an informal settlement that he apparently did not sign.
Even after the commission declared its charges against Mulholland, he was allowed to keep practicing while the case proceeded. He saw patients as late as May, before he went on leave.
At least 84 patients have filed lawsuits against Mulholland or his employer since the state’s investigation became public. Court filings by Mulholland’s attorney, made in response to the lawsuits, have denied wrongdoing or improper conduct toward women. He also has denied the allegations made by the medical commission and is entitled to a hearing to contest them.
Emily Volland, a spokesperson for Kadlec and its affiliate, the Providence health system, said Mulholland is no longer employed by Kadlec. Volland declined to comment on the allegations against him but said via email: “We take our patient’s safety very seriously and are fully cooperating with the state in this matter.”
The lawsuits against Mulholland, Kadlec and Providence are ongoing. Lawyers for Providence and Kadlec in court filings denied allegations of negligence and wrongdoing.
While other news coverage has described the lawsuits and the commission’s actions in 2025, none has focused on how the state dealt with complaints against Mulholland during the three years before he agreed to restrictions on his license.
Washington state has faced criticism in the past for its handling of sexual misconduct complaints. A 2021 Seattle Times investigation found that in 282 cases of alleged sexual misconduct since 2009, state regulators took more than a year to impose discipline.
Several other states in recent years have dealt with their own high-profile cases of sexual misconduct involving OB-GYNs. On March 10, for instance, Columbia University in New York released a report detailing how a culture of silence at the institution had allowed OB-GYN Robert Hadden to abuse more than 1,000 patients over decades.
States like Ohio and Delaware have moved aggressively to make it easier to keep doctors accused of sexual misconduct away from patients.
In Washington, the medical commission wasn’t the only organization that allowed Mulholland to keep practicing.
A Kadlec risk management employee, through an attorney, acknowledged to the commission that the clinic had received patient complaints against the doctor and said they were investigated. (The letter did not describe the complaints but said they included “communication with patients regarding obesity.”) Mulholland’s privileges were never restricted or terminated, the statement said.
When local news stories covered the commission’s charges against Mulholland in June, it unleashed a deluge of 18 new complaints in the following three months.
In September, the commission placed restrictions on his license that prevented him from seeing female patients. Mulholland agreed pending a hearing on his case.
“They just let him keep practicing.”
A former patient of Dr. Mark Mulholland’s
Yanling Yu, a former Washington medical commissioner and a patient advocate with Washington Advocates for Patient Safety, wouldn’t comment on the Mulholland case directly. But she said it’s ethically wrong to allow a doctor facing serious allegations of sexual misconduct to continue seeing any patients while an investigation is ongoing.
“In an ideal regulatory system, if there has been enough or strong evidence to support the allegation, the doctor’s practice should be temporarily suspended or at least summarily restricted to protect patients’ safety,” she wrote in an email.
Kyle Karinen, executive director of the Washington Medical Commission, said the agency wasn’t slow to act and that it must operate under the system lawmakers created.
“I acknowledge that sometimes it takes longer than people would like, but we take that process really seriously,” Karinen said. “When we file a case and go to a hearing, we want to make sure that everybody has the opportunity to be heard on a particular topic.”
The woman who saw Mulholland in February 2025 filed a lawsuit against the clinic and a board complaint against the doctor, both in August. She said she was indignant after learning about the earlier complaints.
She said the commission should have taken those women more seriously. “They just let him keep practicing,” she said.
The first sexual misconduct allegation against Mulholland landed in the commission’s email inbox in January 2022. The author was a first-time mother who, at 41 weeks pregnant, went to have labor induced at the Kadlec Regional Medical Center.
The woman said she had hoped a female doctor would deliver the baby. But Mulholland was the on-call doctor assigned the day she arrived. When she saw that the doctor was a man, she asked if the female nurse who was there could perform her predelivery cervical check instead, according to her complaint.
Mulholland insisted, she said. (He later told a commission investigator that because the woman was having labor induced, he had to personally know her cervical dilation and consistency, whether the fetus was in breech position or if her amniotic sac was intact. He also said because she was experiencing high blood pressure, her delivery couldn’t wait to be rescheduled with a female doctor.)
“I didn’t have a choice but to trust who was supposed to be trustworthy,” the woman said in an interview with KUOW and ProPublica.
In her complaint, she said Mulholland was inappropriate. When the nurse asked her if she still had her underwear on, Mulholland joked that he still had his on too, she wrote.
During the cervical check, with his fingers inside the expectant mother, he pressed in different directions, according to her complaint. The woman said Mulholland told her he doesn’t perform exams this way because it hurts. Then he showed her what he described as the correct way, she said in the complaint.
“The cervical check was the longest and most painful one I have ever had,” she said in the complaint.
“I didn’t have a choice but to trust who was supposed to be trustworthy.”
A former patient of Mulholland’s
Three OB-GYNs, when presented by KUOW and ProPublica with the woman’s description of the pelvic exam, said the maneuver sounded unnecessarily painful.
“That sounds strange,” said Alson Burke, an associate professor at the University of Washington who teaches medical students how to perform pelvic exams. “Saying ‘I don’t do something because it hurts’ and then doing it doesn’t make sense to me.”
Commission records show that Mulholland said the allegation that his cervical exam was longer than what’s typical was absurd.
“I do try to be as careful, quick, gentle, and efficient as I can be when doing a pelvic exam whether it is for gynecology or obstetrics,” he wrote in an email to a commission clinical health care investigator. “With regards to being the most painful one she ever had, for that I am surprised as well as sorry. I pride myself on trying to be as gentle as absolutely possible. I get frequent compliments on how much less uncomfortable my exams are than most other providers, male or female.”
The nurse present during the woman’s exam told the commission it seemed “no longer or any more painful than these types of exams are typically.”
Up until that day, the patient’s pregnancy had been a joyous experience, she said in an interview with KUOW and ProPublica. She was excited to meet her daughter and picked out the outfit she’d arrive home in.
The nurse was ultimately able to line up a midwife to assist with the woman’s delivery in place of Mulholland.
But her cervical exam with Mulholland made the birth experience “worse than we could have ever imagined,” the woman, now 27, said in an interview with KUOW and ProPublica. It brought about depression and anxiety, she said.
“My daughter’s an only child, and I’m not sure if she ever will get a sibling because of how traumatic that was,” she told the news organizations.
By the end of July 2022, the new mother’s case was closed without any disciplinary action.
At the time, it was an isolated complaint in the record of a doctor who, records show, had not faced accusations of sexual misconduct with the medical commission before.
Then, a little over a year later, came another complaint, this time filed by a woman who had worked with Mulholland for nearly a decade.
According to an investigator’s report, the woman said she had worked at Kadlec Regional Medical Center for nine years and her interactions as Mulholland’s colleague had always been professional.
The complaint she filed in October 2023 concerned events she said took place when she was Mulholland’s patient. She’d had her fallopian tubes and the tissue lining her uterus removed and developed pain that was only present when she was menstruating.
On the day of her appointment, her complaint said, she’d explained all this to Mulholland when he began a line of questioning.
“Does it hurt you to have intercourse?”
“No,” she replied.
Then, the woman wrote in her complaint to the medical commission, Mulholland stood close to her and in a lower tone asked. “Not even when he’s deep inside you?”
“No,” she said she asserted.
Mulholland told the woman he needed to do a pelvic exam, according to the complaint.
While examining her, the woman wrote, Mulholland used one hand to push down on the top of her abdomen and with the other hand began repeatedly and “powerfully” thrusting his fingers into her vagina.
Burke, the associate professor of medicine at the University of Washington, said repeated “thrusting” is neither a technique she uses nor something she has ever observed.
“The reason I wouldn’t recommend it is because it could be triggering and really uncomfortable for someone,” Burke said. “Is that actually helping you gather the information? And is the patient feeling safe in the way that you are examining them?”
She said that no part of the pelvic exam should be performed in such a way that its intent could be perceived as sexual.
According to the former colleague’s complaint, each time Mulholland shoved his fingers inside, he leaned in close and asked, “Is this the same as the pain you felt?”
The woman wrote that Mulholland was “effectively holding her in place” on the exam table and she was unable to move to escape the pain. A medical assistant was nearby, she said.
After the pelvic exam, she said, the assistant left. Mulholland told the woman that she had a “great looking vagina,” she wrote, and that he usually had to use three fingers, but with her, he could only use two. Before leaving, the woman said in her complaint, the doctor asked her if she worked out and said he could tell she did.
Through an attorney, Mulholland later told the commission that he conducts all of his exams “as respectfully as possible” and that he is “very cognizant of his patient’s reactions.”
The doctor was responding to a commission investigator’s December 2023 request for his version of what happened during the woman’s visit.
That same month, a complaint from a third woman arrived.
It was three weeks before the new year when the woman went to the medical commission for help.
The patient, whose primary language is Spanish, had an interpreter join her in-person appointment virtually. A physician’s assistant had referred the woman to Mulholland to discuss a possible hysterectomy to relieve pain.
The woman later told a commission investigator that during her appointment, Mulholland entered the exam room and introduced himself. Then he lifted the paper sheet that covered her naked lower half, looked at her genital area, then looked back at her, which made her uncomfortable. Without asking her to reposition herself, he grabbed her by the butt to move her down the exam table, she said.
Mulholland’s pelvic exam was aggressive, she said in her written complaint to the commission. The investigator who interviewed her wrote that the woman said he’d moved his fingers in and out and that she felt a lot of pressure.
“I yelled at some point,” she wrote in her complaint.
A nurse was present but seemed fixated on the computer screen, the woman said.
Before the appointment ended, Mulholland said he was “eager to see” the woman’s vagina again, laughed and then said he was looking forward to reuniting with her womb, the investigator quoted the woman as saying. When the Spanish-language interpreter on the computer screen went quiet and asked Mulholland to repeat what he said, the woman wrote in her complaint, the doctor told the interpreter there was no need to relay that last message.
The woman was left in pain for 12 days after her appointment with Mulholland, she told the investigator, adding that she didn’t want others to go through what she had.
In response to this complaint, Mulholland’s attorney wrote to the commission, “at no time has he ever simply moved his fingers in and out several times with this patient or any other.”
(A separate report the woman filed with the Richland Police Department, which the department classified as a potential sex offense with “forcible fondling,” was closed in 14 days. The responding officer wrote that he hadn’t found facts to indicate a crime was committed “on the basis that the alleged incident occurred during a medical examination.”)
The state medical commission pressed ahead with its investigations into the two 2023 complaints, both of which asserted Mulholland had moved his fingers in and out during a pelvic exam.
The investigator assigned to both cases turned to Mulholland’s current and former colleagues. Two said that while some patients complained about the way Mulholland communicated with them about weight issues, they personally did not have concerns. Three other current or former colleagues, meanwhile, described problems.
“The cervical check was the longest and most painful one I have ever had.”
A former patient of Mulholland’s
Alexis Tuck, an OB-GYN who worked at Kadlec from 2017 to 2022, said in a statement to the commission that she noticed a pattern of Mulholland’s patients switching providers because they wanted anyone “except Dr. Mulholland,” and sometimes requested her.
She said that when she asked these patients about the reason behind their switch they replied:
“He grabbed my belly fat and shook it in front of my husband.”
“He called me fat and made fun of me.”
“He told me my vagina is tight during a pelvic exam.”
“He told me I have a pretty vagina during a pap smear.”
“He made a comment about my vagina being tight and I talked to my mom about him. Apparently she had a similar weird experience with him.”
Tuck told the commission that more than once, patients cried in her office while sharing their stories.
“These accounts were consistent in their tone and content, painting a troubling picture of a physician whose behavior repeatedly crossed the line of professional and ethical conduct,” she wrote to the commission.
Tuck told the commission that the woman who filed the October 2023 complaint was among those who described their experiences to her. Tuck said the woman was “visibly shaken and emotional” when she detailed what happened, which, based on Tuck’s retelling, was generally consistent with the woman’s complaint to the medical commission.
Another colleague told the commission that Mulholland once told her as a patient was leaving the office, “I bet you were skinny like her when you were pregnant,” and that another time he said he thought he’d seen her driving a BMW and that she looked “hot.” Another said she found Mulholland’s comments about overweight women disrespectful.
The claims against Mulholland were piling up.
In February and March 2024, Britta Fischer, commission investigator, submitted the 2023 cases for review.
What to do next was soon in the hands of commissioners.
The medical commission takes its guidance on how to handle allegations against a doctor from Washington statutes, which prohibit physicians from engaging in a range of behavior defined as sexual misconduct.
The law bans statements about a patient’s “body, appearance, sexual history, or sexual orientation” except for legitimate purposes of care. The law also bars behavior, gestures or expressions that could “reasonably be interpreted as seductive or sexual.”
A doctor can’t remove a patient’s gown or draping unless it’s with a patient’s consent, during emergency care or in a custodial setting.
A doctor can’t touch a person’s breasts, genitals, anus or other “sexualized body part” unless it’s “consistent with accepted community standards of practice for examination, diagnosis and treatment and within the health care practitioner’s scope of practice.”
Determining whether or not behavior is appropriate can be particularly difficult when it comes to OB-GYNs, said Emily Anderson, professor at Neiswanger Institute for Bioethics and Healthcare Leadership and Loyola University Chicago’s Stritch School of Medicine.
“They have access to our naked bodies as women, to our vaginas, to our breasts,” Anderson said. “They are allowed to do things that we don’t give other people permission to do, and that’s part of their job.”
There are standards for physical exams. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists’ Committee on Ethics wrote that exams should be explained appropriately, done only with patient consent and “performed with the minimum amount of physical contact required to obtain data for diagnosis and treatment.”
State medical boards can also look to patterns of behavior.
Two of the three complaints against Mulholland from 2022 through 2023 mentioned movement in and out during pelvic exams, while all three described painful pelvic exams and comments the women considered inappropriate. Three colleagues also had described hearing about or witnessing him making disrespectful or inappropriate remarks, including one who said they were directed at her.
OB-GYNs “have access to our naked bodies as women.”
Emily Anderson, professor at Neiswanger Institute for Bioethics and Healthcare Leadership and Loyola University Chicago’s Stritch School of Medicine
Anderson, in a journal article, wrote that it’s common to find repeated, lesser forms of misconduct in the backgrounds of doctors who act egregiously.
“For example, sexual violations are nearly always preceded by boundary violations such as inappropriate comments or touching,” the article said.
Anderson and her colleagues recommended state regulators consider restricting a doctor’s license for multiple smaller offenses.
Stephanie Loucka, executive director of Ohio’s medical board, said that if patterns of misconduct exist, the process will find them — even when an OB-GYN’s actions occur under the guise of legitimate care. Ohio began its overhaul of sexual misconduct investigations seven years ago.
“If a complaint gets made, we’re going to work the fact pattern from the assumption that there might be something there, and we’re going to gather the evidence and see where the evidence takes us,” she said. “And it typically takes us clearly one way or the other.”
If there’s a threat of immediate harm in cases of sexual misconduct, Loucka said, Ohio moves “with a sense of urgency” to file an emergency suspension. She estimated it has taken the Ohio board from six weeks to nine months to do so.
In Washington, the medical commission reviewed the investigator’s reports on the 2023 cases and decided on what it considered an appropriate resolution.
It proposed an “informal way of settling” allegations against Mulholland.
A heavily redacted May 31, 2024, letter sent to Mulholland’s attorney by the commission does not reveal the terms of the settlement. But the letter said the settlement would not require an admission of “any unprofessional conduct or wrongdoing.” Although settlements appear in the commission’s newsletter with brief summaries, the letter told Mulholland that a settlement would avoid a hearing, typically a public process.
All Mulholland had to do was sign.
Months passed. Mulholland’s attorney asked for the information gathered about his client, and the commission sent it. A June 2024 deadline for him to accept the agreement passed, as did a subsequent one in August. Nothing in documents released by the commission indicates he signed — or that the commission took any disciplinary action.
Mulholland kept seeing patients.
Long before the commission’s investigator filed her report with her superiors, Mulholland’s employer had also heard repeated concerns, according to Kadlec Clinic records acquired by attorneys in a lawsuit against Providence and the clinic. The attorneys submitted the documents as an exhibit in court.
(In court filings, Providence and Kadlec denied that they were negligent or that they knew or should have known about the abuse the plaintiffs alleged.)
Kadlec’s records in the lawsuit show that the clinic conducted a 2018 human resources investigation into allegations that Mulholland had mocked a co-worker’s sexuality and religion, concluding that it was “more likely than not” the allegations were true. Afterward, the records say, Mulholland’s employer provided him “coaching.”
Kadlec’s records also say that the clinic conducted a 2019 workplace investigation into allegations that Mulholland made sex jokes and condescending remarks, displayed discrimination toward women, and challenged a co-worker who complained about him.
A labor nurse told a Providence investigator that year that Mulholland had pinched a patient’s labia while she was in labor and asked if she was hurting. A colleague told the nurse that Mulholland had done the same to another patient who was giving birth, according to the labor nurse’s account as written down by the investigator.
A different colleague reported to a Kadlec workplace investigator that a patient had disclosed that Mulholland told her to “masturbate more often,” Kadlec records say.
Separately, Tuck, the OB-GYN who worked alongside Mulholland, told a Kadlec investigator that a patient disclosed she felt Mulholland had assaulted her but that the woman didn’t report it because she felt no one would believe her.
Following the 2019 workplace investigation, Kadlec’s records say, Mulholland’s employer concluded in 2020 that he “engaged in multiple instances of inappropriate behavior” that violated the medical center’s expectations. He was placed on a “behavior agreement” and required to take harassment prevention training.
In 2022, Kadlec records show, more emails were sent to clinic leadership alleging that Mulholland was demeaning to patients and co-workers. They described a “toxic work environment” and said management failed to address employees’ concerns about the doctor.
Tuck departed the clinic sometime that same year. She later told the medical commission she left because management failed to take action against him.
Tuck raised concerns about Mulholland within an email to Chief Medical Officer Rich Meadows in July 2022, writing that patients “felt they had been insulted/assaulted” by Mulholland.
Kadlec’s records in the lawsuit show that Tuck had also told a Kadlec workplace investigator in 2019 that the clinic manager, Lisa Mallory, protected Mulholland. In the statement she later gave the state medical commission, Tuck said when she brought concerns about Mulholland to Mallory, she responded, “He’s always been like that.”
Mallory, in response to a request for comment from KUOW and ProPublica, said this statement was taken out of context. She declined to say more. Meadows, through a Providence spokesperson, declined to comment.
In June 2023, clinic records in the lawsuit say, Kadlec took a phone call from a patient who said Mulholland shoved his two fingers inside of her so hard during a pelvic exam that she felt his knuckles slam up against her vagina and anus.
“Rough, jabbing and pushing up, like he was trying to arouse me or something,” according to Kadlec’s narrative describing the woman’s complaint.
She told Kadlec that she had alerted Mulholland before the exam that her vagina was prone to tearing and that she experienced vaginal pain with as little as a sneeze or a cough.
Kadlec’s summary of the woman’s account said that after a rectal exam, Mulholland told the patient: “Well, you took that surprisingly well. It’s a good thing my fingers are small.”
The woman said her body where Mulholland touched her was inflamed for two and a half days.
When the commission eventually contacted Mallory as part of the state’s own investigation, the clinic manager acknowledged there had been complaints within Kadlec. She did not seem to give them much credence.
“Dr. Mulholland has received his fair share of complaints over the years as have all the other providers here” at the Kadlec clinic, she wrote in a statement to the state board. “From what I have observed, he cares deeply for his patients and has spent his career trying to educate women on their health. They have not always appreciated how he has done that.”
By September 2024, more than two years had elapsed since the state received its first complaint about a pelvic exam performed by Mulholland. Six months had passed since an investigator forwarded her report on two other pelvic exam complaints. That month, the commission learned of a new one.
“During examination, he said my vagina was very dry and that my husband wasn’t doing his job,” the woman wrote in her complaint.
The woman also described her interaction with Mulholland to a commission investigator. At the appointment, the woman had told a medical assistant that she was concerned about a fishy smell, she said. Upon entering the exam room, she told the investigator, Mulholland said loudly, “Hey, I heard you had a vagina that smells like fish.”
When he conducted his physical examination, the woman told the investigator, Mulholland penetrated her with his fingers and was “going in and out” and touching her clitoris.
The patient said she asked Mulholland to stop more than once. She was uncomfortable and what Mulholland was doing reminded her of her past sexual abuse, she wrote in her complaint. She said he eventually stopped.
Next, according to an investigator’s memo outlining the patient’s interview, Mulholland asked her if she masturbated and if she used sex toys or her fingers to do so. When the patient said she did not, Mulholland encouraged her to purchase some toys and to use them alone, she said. Then, according to the memo describing the woman’s account, Mulholland rubbed her shoulder and said, “You’re too young not to have good sex.”
A mandatory reporter filed a complaint supplementing the woman’s filing at around the same time.
By that time, the woman’s account brought to four the number of women asserting sexual misconduct by Mulholland since 2022. Counting a woman who reported rude behavior in a submission that was not marked as alleging sexual misconduct and that the commission closed, Mulholland had been named in six complaints.
Only 11 licensed physicians and physician assistants were the subject of six or more complaints in that time frame, the commission’s spokesperson said. As of last year, 41,256 people held this type of license in Washington.
A week after the mandatory reporter contacted the commission, Kelly Elder, a Washington Medical Commission staff attorney, sent the two pending 2023 cases back to Freda Pace, the commission’s director of investigations.
Elder asked Pace to have investigators try and reach people whose statements hadn’t been collected before.
Medical commission records show that investigator Britta Fischer also began looking into the new allegation.
Fischer’s inquiries produced statements from co-workers attesting to Mulholland’s good character and stating that they were unaware of any concerns raised by patients.
Mulholland himself, in a statement his attorney gave to the commission, said he didn’t have a “firm recollection” of the appointment the patient described in her complaint. He said he would never tell a patient anything to the effect that her husband was not doing his job. He said he addresses masturbation with patients who complain of sexual dryness or pain during sex, and he denied stroking the patient’s shoulder in a “suggestive way.”
Due to “unjustified allegations,” the statement said, Mulholland had changed the way he worked with patients. The statement said these changes included always trying to have a chaperone present instead of just during physical exams. He also started creating more physical distance from the patient during counseling and exploring “tangential issues, such as sexual health and wellbeing” only when a patient brought them up.
“Dr. Mulholland is truly sorry if his previous long-standing practice patterns have caused any patient any type of duress or anguish because of misinterpretation of what Dr. Mulholland was attempting to accomplish — excellent patient care,” the statement sent to the commission said.
Still, the commission also had the prior, adverse statements from colleagues and patients. In April 2025, the agency formally accused Mulholland of abuse and unprofessional conduct. (The allegations would later be amended to include sexual misconduct.)
Neither the medical commission nor the Washington State Department of Health, which oversees it, posted a news release on their websites. Members of the general public could have learned of the charges — if they knew to search for Mulholland’s name on the Health Department’s “provider credential search” page. Stephanie Mason, spokesperson for the commission, said the statement of charges would also go out to anyone who subscribed to quarterly email updates from the commission.
It wasn’t until a June Tri-City Herald story that the commission’s claims seemed to become widely known.
The outpouring of new patient complaints that followed echoed what the commission had already heard.
“Nobody was listening to me, and I did everything that I should have done.”
Torryn Kerley, a former patient who sued Mulholland. Kerley asked to be identified by name for this article.
Their accounts included allegations that Mulholland had peeked at their pubic hair under the sheet, physically pulled them down the exam table, used sexual language and performed extremely painful vaginal exams.
Two of the women who have filed lawsuits against Mulholland or his employers told KUOW and ProPublica they attended appointments with him after the commission had received multiple complaints and before he agreed to restrictions on his license.
One said she was angry she hadn’t heard about allegations against Mulholland sooner. After a hysterectomy, she was directed to see him every four months for a year for pap smears.
She saw Mulholland for the last time on May 1, 2025 — two days after the commission filed its allegations against him. She learned about the commission’s case after the media coverage began.
“I don’t know if I expected the lady at the counter when you’re checking in to warn you and say, ‘Hey, you’re gonna see Mulholland, and he’s had complaints,’” she said in an interview with KUOW and ProPublica. “I don’t see a company or whatever ever doing that, but it would have been nice to know. I would have picked a different doctor.”
Another woman who sued, Torryn Kerley, said she was angry at Kadlec to learn of all the women coming forward in lawsuits after she had already complained to the clinic about Mulholland.
“Nobody was listening to me, and I did everything that I should have done,” said Kerley, who asked to be identified by name for this article. “I reported it. I told people about it. I told doctors in the office about it.”
Karinen, the medical commission director, said it’s very unusual for the commission to file a statement of charges and then get dozens of complaints in the same vein against that same doctor, as happened with Mulholland.
“That’s unheard of,” he said.
Mason, the commission spokesperson, cast the arrival of the new complaints as a positive outcome of the action that commissioners took against Mulholland.
“That’s what opened the door to these women coming forward, because at that point, really not very many people had said anything at all, by comparison,” Mason said.
No date has been set yet for a hearing in which Mulholland can challenge the commission’s allegations against him.
Medical abuse leaves real harm, not just in your body, but in how safe you feel in any medical setting afterward. You might sit with what happened for months or years before you even say the words out loud.
When you start looking up the statute of limitations on medical abuse, you’re really asking whether the law will still give you a chance to be heard. The answer depends on where you live, how old you were, and what the provider did. Knowing how these deadlines work gives you a clearer view of your options so you can decide what makes sense for you.
A statute of limitations is a law that sets a deadline for starting a legal case in court. It tells you how long you have to file a lawsuit after an injury, harm, or abuse happens. Once that deadline passes, courts usually refuse to hear the case, no matter how strong the facts are. It’s a time limit that can decide whether your case moves forward or stops before it starts.
Every state has its own set of statutes of limitations, and they can change based on the type of case. Medical abuse, medical malpractice, and assault often fall under different time limits than things like car crashes or contract disputes. The “clock” can start when the abuse happens or, in some situations, when you first learn that what happened to you was abuse. If you miss that filing window, the person or institution that harmed you can use the statute of limitations as a legal shield to block your case.
Statutes of limitations exist to create clear rules for when cases can be filed. Courts, hospitals, doctors, and insurance companies rely on these time limits to decide when a case is still “active” in the eyes of the law. The idea is that cases move forward while evidence is still available and memories are still reasonably fresh.
Some common reasons statutes of limitations exist include:
For survivors of medical abuse, these time limits can feel harsh and unfair, especially when it takes time to process what happened. They’re still enforced, though, which makes it important to understand them and talk with a lawyer before the deadline passes.
Every state sets its own deadlines for medical cases, including medical abuse and malpractice. The time limit in one state can look very different from the one next door. Some states give only a short window to file, while others build in extra time for certain situations, like abuse that happened in childhood or abuse that took years to process. That’s why the answer to “how long do I have?” always depends on where you live and what happened.
Not every medical case follows the same deadline in a state. One set of rules might apply to general medical malpractice, like a surgical error or misdiagnosis. A different set can apply when the harm involves sexual assault, groping, or other intentional abuse by a doctor, nurse, or therapist. Some states treat medical sexual abuse under assault or sexual abuse laws instead of standard malpractice rules, which can change the time limit and how long you have to bring a claim.
Many states give children more time. When abuse happens to a minor, the filing clock often doesn’t start until they turn 18, or they may receive extra years past age 18 to bring a claim. Some states also extend deadlines for young adults who were still in school or dependent on a parent when the abuse happened. These extended timelines recognize that kids and teens usually aren’t in a position to hire a lawyer or report a trusted medical provider right away.
Another big difference from state to state is when the countdown begins. In some places, the clock starts on the date of the abuse or the last appointment with that provider. Other states use a “discovery” approach, which starts the clock when you first knew or reasonably should have known that what happened was abuse or caused your injury. This matters in medical abuse cases where survivors may not label the experience as abuse until years later, or until a therapist, partner, or another doctor helps connect the dots.
In a few states, the time limit changes based on whether you report the abuse to law enforcement or a licensing board. For example, filing a police report or a complaint with a medical board within a certain time can extend the window to file a lawsuit. Other states don’t tie the deadline to reporting at all and use a strict countdown from the date of the event. Because these rules vary so much, it’s important to talk with a lawyer in your state as soon as you start thinking about taking legal action.
Understanding how the statute of limitations on medical abuse works shows you that there’s a legal clock running, even if no one explained it to you at the time. Those deadlines shift from state to state, and they often hit women and LGBTQ+ patients the hardest, especially when there was fear, shame, or retaliation involved.
You deserve real information, not confusion or judgment, when you’re deciding what to do next. A lawyer who focuses on medical abuse can walk through your timeline, help you understand your rights, and protect your ability to file before the deadline closes that door.
If you have a medical abuse case that falls within your state’s statute of limitations and you want to seek accountability and compensation, reaching out to the team at Tamara N. Holder can move things forward. Tamara N. Holder is a women’s rights attorney who fights to get survivors the justice they deserve. Her and her team will listen to your story, answer your questions, and provide clear, steady support the whole way through.
Feb. 20, 2026
By Elise Takahama, Seattle Times health reporter
A Richland OB-GYN has been accused of medically and sexually abusing patients for years, with a state investigation and a flood of lawsuits outlining conduct ranging from invasive touching to performing major surgeries without consent.
At least 17 women have sued Dr. Mark Mulholland in King County Superior Court since August, detailing alleged instances of unprofessional conduct, verbal abuse and pelvic exams that were not medically necessary, sometimes painful and performed without gloves. The lawsuits also name Mulholland’s former employer, Providence Health & Services, headquartered in Renton, asserting that patient complaints were disregarded.
An additional 31 patients have filed lawsuits in King County Superior Court with similar allegations against Mulholland — but that solely name Providence and its Kadlec obstetrics and gynecology clinic, where he worked, as defendants.
The lawsuits come amid an investigation by the Washington Medical Commission that so far has resulted in the panel imposing restrictions on Mulholland’s medical license. Mulholland still has an active physician and surgeon license in Washington, but, per the commission, is not allowed to work with female patients while the state investigation continues.
Mulholland has not been criminally charged. Police in Richland said Thursday they are investigating.
Mulholland’s license, which he’s held for 26 years, comes up for renewal in March. It’s not clear if he will seek to renew it.
Attorneys for Mulholland did not respond to requests for comment, but have denied allegations in court documents, rejecting “any implications of negligence, liability, proximate cause.”
Providence is accused in the lawsuits of corporate negligence, and violating state discrimination and consumer protection laws. The 40 filings, with some filed by more than one patient, include plaintiff allegations from 2016 to 2025.
Emily Volland, director of communication for Providence’s Southeast Washington area, said she could not comment on ongoing litigation or the state investigation.
“We take our patient’s safety very seriously and are fully cooperating with the state in this matter,” Volland wrote in a statement.
The patients with medical malpractice claims are represented by Elizabeth Hanley, an attorney with Schroeter Goldmark & Bender in Seattle, and Tamara Holder, an attorney with Chicago-based Tamara Holder Law firm. In all, their teams have spoken with about 200 patients who say they were harmed by Mulholland, according to Hanley and Holder.
“I hope that we can resolve this case in a way that provides a meaningful outcome for the women who have been abused,” said Holder, who went to high school in Kennewick.
Range of complaints
Patient complaints about Mulholland date back more than 20 years, but it wasn’t until the state medical board brought disciplinary charges in April that a fuller scope of the accusations against the doctor emerged.
The Tri-City Herald and other local media covered the board’s actions, leading other patients to reach out to attorneys to inquire about possible legal claims, Holder said.
In one of the lawsuits, filed Aug. 25 by Hanley’s and Holder’s team, a patient identified as “Jane Doe 104” said Mulholland gave a “rough and aggressive” pelvic exam in 2023 that led her to scream out in pain. She told a supervisor at Kadlec’s Associated Physicians for Women clinic, the lawsuit says. The supervisor said they would look into it and call her back, but she was never contacted, the lawsuit says.
A few weeks later, the patient went to Richland police, but the department declined to further investigate. According to the case report, part of which is included in the Aug. 25 lawsuit, there was not enough evidence of a crime as the alleged misconduct “occurred during a medical examination,” an officer wrote.
Richland police Cmdr. Damon Jansen noted in an email to The Seattle Times that while law enforcement officers can investigate alleged incidents that occur during medical exams, “it is not something that happens with great frequency … due to a myriad of reasons.”
Jansen declined to elaborate on what those reasons might include.
In another lawsuit, which includes a claim of medical battery among other violations, Jane Doe 109 alleges that in 2023, she thought she would be undergoing a labiaplasty, but Mulholland ended up performing a much more major surgery — one that removed both her fallopian tubes, which left her unable to conceive. She did not consent to that procedure, the lawsuit says.
Jane Doe 110, who was 15 during her first pregnancy and when she became Mulholland’s patient, alleges he did an invasive examination without gloves. She had received hardly any gynecological care before meeting Mulholland in 2016.
It wasn’t until 2024, when she became pregnant again and started seeing a different provider for prenatal care, that she began questioning Mulholland’s behavior.
Her new provider expressed concern after the patient described his actions.
She also reported Mulholland to Richland police, the lawsuit says.
Jansen said police have not questioned Mulholland, but the department is investigating multiple allegations against him.
State inquiry
Since the Washington Medical Commission made its findings against Mulholland in April, the board has received at least 26 similar complaints about him, said Kyle Karinen, the commission’s executive director.
“That’s fairly unusual for us,” Karinen said. “I’ve worked here for a number of years and I can’t remember quite that number of complaints flowing in” after initial disciplinary charges were filed.
“That’s incredibly concerning,” he added.
The medical commission — run by 21 governor-appointed members — is housed within the state Department of Health and tasked with licensing and regulating physicians, physician assistants and certified anesthesiology assistants.
The commission’s April charges referenced reports from three patients who saw Mulholland between 2022 and 2024, during which he allegedly asked questions that made them uncomfortable and inappropriately touched them.
The commission ordered restrictions on Mulholland’s license in September.
In December, the medical commission updated its charges with accusations from six more patients alleging misconduct between 2017 and 2024. The additional patients described appointments where Mulholland allegedly instructed them to use sex toys, told them to call his personal cellphone, body-shamed them and made jokes about their vaginas, the charges say. The commission added sexual misconduct to its list of alleged violations.
The state group is reviewing four other accusations related to Mulholland, with several more “authorized for investigation” after those, Karinen said.
Mulholland has the opportunity to defend himself at an administrative hearing, where he can testify in front of a commission panel and state investigators will present evidence, Karinen said. After that, commission members will vote on what to do with Mulholland’s license.
A hearing has not yet been scheduled.
“The commission takes these cases incredibly seriously,” Karinen said. “These are a priority … and we devote an immense amount of resources into investigating these cases.”
‘Institutional failure’
In addition to bringing claims against Mulholland, Holder said the lawsuits are about “institutional failure” at Providence Kadlec.
According to the lawsuits, patients complained about him to the clinic’s staff, supervisors and its patient relations department, but felt their concerns were dismissed or ignored.
“One of the most shocking details is that after the Washington Medical Commission’s filing on April 29, (Providence) continued to allow him to work unchaperoned and without notifying patients,” Holder said.
Volland, of Providence, said Mulholland is no longer employed by Kadlec, but declined to answer questions about when he stopped practicing there.
Providence has locations in Alaska, Montana, Oregon, California and Washington.
The other lawsuits that reference Mulholland but do not name him as a defendant also include allegations of sexual abuse during medical appointments. But their claims are against Providence, Kadlec Regional Medical Center and the Associated Physicians for Women clinic, which the lawsuits argue “should have known that Dr. Mulholland was sexually abusing patients.” In cases like these, Hanley said there may be an “instinct by people to point the finger at one person.” “But I also think there needs to be more than lip service by corporate medicine as to what it means to treat women,” she said.
When there are “this many complaints over decades,” Providence has an obligation to “investigate those and take care of them,” Hanley said.
Because there are separate filings against Mulholland, there will likely be multiple civil trials. The first is scheduled for August, though the date could change as the cases progress.
