Review: Evidence about doctor’s abuse ignored

Ohio’s governor says the medical board ignored evidence in 1996 that an OSU doctor had abused male students.

COLUMBUS, OHIO >> The State Medical Board of Ohio ignored credible evidence in 1996 that an Ohio State University team doctor had been sexually abusing male students through genital exams for years and missed a chance to stop him, the governor and a review panel announced Friday. A state working group that reviewed the old investigation said it couldn’t determine why the medical board never took action against Richard Strauss or reported the now-deceased doctor to law enforcement, but it found no evidence the case was intentionally buried. One former employee said the investigation fell into a “black hole,” according the group’s report.

“This whole story is disgusting,” Republican Gov. Mike DeWine said. “This whole story is a failure of people to do what’s right.”

Lawyers suing Ohio State over Strauss’ sexual misconduct say they now represent over 300 accusers whose allegations span from 1979 to 1997 — nearly his entire career at the university. A law firm that separately investigated allegations for the school concluded officials learned of concerns about Strauss throughout his tenure but did little to stop him.

Based on the state working group’s findings and recommendations, DeWine is asking the medical board to identify whether there are any licensed Ohio doctors who knew or suspected Strauss’ misconduct and should have reported it but didn’t. He also wants the board to review about 1,500 closed cases from the past 25 years that involved sexual assault allegations against medical staff to see if any others involved evidence of criminal misconduct that was ignored.

“I shudder to think there could be other predator physicians still practicing in the state of Ohio or other places in our country,” DeWine said. “I shudder to think that there could be other doctors out there who, because their case may have gone into a black hole, are still allowed to practice. We need to find that out.” The medical board said it welcomed the working group’s recommendations and is reviewing the findings but doesn’t know what went into the decision-making in 1996.