Case of Stuart Copperman, MD

(AKA: Stuart D. Copperman, Stuart Cooperman)

Pediatrician - Merrick, New York

Delray Beach, FL

Past President - Nassau Pediatric Society

Dr. Stuart Cooperman had his medical license revoked by the New York State Health Department , after an investigation revealed that he had sexually molested six female patients. He had a pediatric practice in Merrick, New York, for 35 years.

_________________________________________________________________________________

Disclaimer: Inclusion in this website does not constitute a recommendation or endorsement. Individuals must decide for themselves if the resources meet their own personal needs.

Table of Contents:

2000

RE: In the Matter of Stuart Copperman, M.D (12/06/2000)

L.I. DOC'S LICENSE AXED State panel says pediatrician groped young patients (12/12/2000)

More calls rap doc in sex abuse case (12/13/2000)

State Revokes License Of South Merrick Doctor (12/13/2000)

Doc in Molestation Case Wins Round - Pediatrician may see patients during appeal (12/15/2000)

Doc's License Restored But More Female Patients Charge Molestation (12/15/2000)

After All This Time / Patients come forward to talk of abuse case against LI doc (12/18/2000)

More Woes for Accused Doctor / 4 major health plans drop pediatrician (12/20/2000)

Conflicting Images of Pediatrician in Molestation Case (12/23/2000)

2001

They Didn't Believe Her Back Then / Woman relives past as doctor is denied right to his license (01/18/2001)
Did this pediatrician molest his patients? (06/01/2001)
A Complaint Never Forwarded / Woman says report of abuse never referred to state (06/06/2001)
Local Web Site Still Lists Doc (06/06/2001)
Congregant in Scandal Shakes Up Temple (09/23/2001)
'The Rabbi Defends the Pediatrician (12/31/2001)

_________________________________________________________________________________

RE: In the Matter of Stuart Copperman, M.D

State of New York, Department of Health - December 6, 2000

RE: In the Matter of Stuart Copperman, M.D.

Dear Parties:

Enclosed please find the Determination and Order (No. 00-340) of the

Hearing Committee in the above referenced matter. This Determination and Order

shall be deemed effective upon the receipt or seven (7) days after mailing by

certified mail as per the provisions of

Conroy

Wendy A. Stimpfl, Esq.

Kern Augustine

T: Lawrence Tabak, Esq.

Merrick, New York 11566

New York, New York 1000 1

- 6* Floor

1 NYS Department of Health 3 13 7 Hewlett Avenue

5 Penn Plaza

- RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED

Sylvia P. Finkelstein Stuart Copperman, M.D.

6,200O

CERTIFIED MAIL

Dr.P.H.

Commissioner

Dennis P. Whalen

Executive Deputy Commissioner

December

/btonia C. Novello, M.D., M.P.H.,

N,EW YORK

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH

433 River Street, Suite 303 Troy, New York 121802299

STATE OF .

Troy, New York 12 180

Horan, Esq., Administrative Law Judge

New York State Department of Health

Bureau of Adjudication

Hedley Park Place

433 River Street, Fifth Floor

. reviewed by the Administrative Review Board for professional medical conduct.”

Either the licensee or the Department may seek a review of a committee

determination.

Request for review of the Committee’s determination by the Administrative

Review Board stays penalties other than suspension or revocation until final

determination by that Board. Summary orders are not stayed by Administrative

Review Board reviews.

All notices of review must be served, by certified mail, upon the

Administrative Review Board and the adverse party within fourteen (14) days of

service and receipt of the enclosed Determination and Order.

The notice of review served on the Administrative Review Board should be

forwarded to:

James F.

1992),

“the determination of a committee on professional medical conduct may be

8230-c subdivisions 1 through 5, (McKinney Supp.

$230, subdivision

10, paragraph (i), and

As prescribed by the New York State Public Health Law

- Fourth Floor

Troy, New York 12 180

If your license or registration certificate is lost, misplaced or its whereabouts

is otherwise unknown, you shall submit an affidavit to that effect. If subsequently

you locate the requested items, they must then be delivered to the Office of

Professional Medical Conduct in the manner noted above.

Of&e of Professional Medical Conduct

New York State Department of Health

Hedley Park Place

433 River Street TTB:cah

yrone T. Butler, Director

of Adjudication

Enclosure

Horan at the above address and one copy to the other

party. The stipulated record in this matter shall consist of the official hearing

transcript(s) and all documents in evidence.

Parties will be notified by mail of the Administrative Review Board’s

Determination and Order.

The parties shall have 30 days from the notice of appeal in which to file their

briefs to the Administrative Review Board. Six copies of all papers must also be

sent to the attention of Mr. .

Esqand Wendy A.

Stimpfl, Esq.

& Schoppmann, P.C.

By T. Lawrence Tabak,

Conroy

NYS Department of Health

Kern Augustine

11,200o

Sylvia Porter Finkelstein, Esq.

Associate counsel

Bureau of Professional Medical Conduct

19,26 and October

6,200O

August 15, September 18,

6,200O

July

NYS Department of Health

5 Penn Plaza

New York, New York

Petitioner Appeared By:

Respondent Appeared By:

SUMMARY OF THE PROCEEDINGS

July

8,200O

Place of Hearing:

Bermas, Esq., Administrative Law Judge, served as Administrative Officer

‘for the Hearing Committee.

After consideration of the entire record, the Hearing Committee submits this Determination and

Order.

Notice of Hearing dated:

Statement of Charges dated:

Hearing Dates:

Deliberation Date: November

BPMC #00-340

Stephen A. Gettinger, M.D., Chairperson, Sheldon H. Putterman, M.D. and Ms. Eugenia

Herbst, duly designated members of the State Board of Professional Medical Conduct, appointed by the

Commissioner of Health of the State of New York pursuant to Section 230 (1) of the Public Health Law,

served as the Hearing Committee in this matter pursuant to Sections 230 (10) (e) and 230 (12) of the

Public Health Law. Stephen

. DETERMINATION

AND ORDER

: HEARING COMMITTEE

----_ ----

: DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH

STATE BOARD FOR PROFESSIONAL MEDICAL CONDUCT

IN THE MATTER

STUART COPPERMAN, M.D.

STATE OF NEW YORK(T.708).

22,196l by the issuance of license number 086495 by the New York

State Education Department. (Ex. 2).

2. At all times herein mentioned, Respondent was a board certified pediatrician with offices located at

3 137 Hewlett Avenue, South Merrick, New York 11566, where he has maintained a private practice

specializing in pediatrics for the past 35 years. (T.344).

3. It is appropriate practice for a pediatrician to perform routine annual physicals on patients.

COPPERMAN, M.D., the Respondent, was authorized to practice medicine in New York

State on or about September

1 and attached hereto as

Appendix A.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Numbers in parentheses refer to transcript page numbers or exhibits. These citations represent

evidence found persuasive by the Hearing Committee in arriving at a particular finding. Conflicting

evidence, if any, was considered and rejected in favor of cited evidence. All Findings are unanimous.

BACKGROUND

1. STUART

STATBMENT OF CHARGES

The Statement of Charges has been marked as Petitioner’s Exhibit \

While Patient A was laying on her back on the examination table, with her

(T. 118-l 19). No nurse was present and Patient

A was asked to disrobe.

embarrassement in front of her mother.

office so that she might be

spared some

(F. 118-l 19, 123-

124, 127). Respondent told Patient A to accompany him to a different

ln or about 1982, when Patient A was 14 years

old, in the course of a routine annual physical examination, Respondent told Patient A that it was

important to keep her genital area clean and that he was going to clean it for her.

office were uneventful. (T. 117-l 18).

(I’. 277-8,285).

PATIENT A

7. Patient A is a female born October 28, 1968. Dr. Copperman was Patient A’s physician from on or

about July 26, 1977 through on or about October 14, 1986. (Ex. 3, T. 117).

8. During the course of his treatment of Patient A, Dr. Copper-man performed routine annual physicals,

including an examination of the external genitalia. (Ex. 3).

9. From in or about 1977 when Patient A was 8 years old until in or about 1982, her visits to

Respondent’s

(T-366,375,

700,713).

6. Rubbing the female genitalia during a physical examination is always inappropriate, whether or not

gloves are used.

4. An examination of the external genitalia is an appropriate part of a routine annual physical by a

pediatrician, (T.699).

5. An examination of the external genitalia includes separating the labia with the examiner’s fingers and

visually inspecting the vaginal opening, hymen, clitoris and the urinary tract opening. e&i&ion. Dr. Copperman may have put his stethoscope underneath Patient B’s

brassiere and may have touched or moved her breast to. listen to her heart. (T.4 15-416).

19-20).

14. On or about April 18, 1989, when Patient B was 20 years old, in the course of performing a routine

camp physical

T.407-413,443-444,449-450).

PATIENT B

13. Patient B is a female born September 22, 1968. Dr. Copperman was Patient B’s physician from on or

about October 5, 1968, through on or about February 20, 1989. (Ex. 4, T.

123), she felt uncomfortable discussing these events with anyone or telling her parents.

(T. 145-147).

12. The medical record maintained by Respondent for Patient A does not accurately reflect the actual

events that occurred during these visits. (Ex. 3,

(T.149-150).

11. On each of these occasions, although Patient A felt embarrassed and humiliated by Respondent’s

touching (T.

(T. 120,

122).

10. On one or more occasions, from 1982 when Patient A was 14 years old, to 1986, when Patient A was

17 years old, in the course of performing routine physical examinations, Respondent told Patient A

that her genital area needed to be cleaned and he touched and rubbed her genital area with ungloved

hands. (T. 123-124, 127-128, 147). During this period of time, Patient A asked her parents several

times to change doctors.

(T. 119). Respondent spread Patient A’s

knees apart and using his bare fingers touched and rubbed her genital area for a few minutes.

knees bent, Respondent told Patient A to let her knees relax (T. 4 16-

417).

her heart.

(Ex.5, T. 57-8).

20. During a routine examination on or about August 12, 1980, Dr. Copper-man performed a heart and

lung examination and an examination of the external genitalia on Patient C. (Ex. 5. P. 13, T.438-439).

2 1. During the heart and lung examination, Dr. Copperman may have put his stethoscope underneath

Patient C’s brassiere and may have touched or moved Patient C’s breast to listen to

through on or about December 24,199O.

1,443-444,449-450).

PATIENT C

19. Patient C is a female born September 6, 1964. Dr. Copperman was Patient C’s physician from on or

about April 22, 1968,

T.421,423-43

23-29,47-49).

17. Upon arriving home after the April 18, 1989 visit, Patient B was crying and told her mother she

would never go back to Respondent’s office (T.32). That evening, Patient B told her sister that she

thought Respondent had touched her in way that was wrong, but did not tell her the details, (T.79, 97-

98).

18. The medical record maintained by Respondent for Patient B does not accurately reflect the actual

events that occurred during this visit. (Ex. 4, p. 1,

(T.

q.416-417);

16. During the April 18, 1989 examination, Respondent touched and rubbed Patient B’s vaginal area and

clitoris with ungloved hands.

15. Dr. Copperman never inappropriately put his hand underneath her brassiere or cupped Patient B’s

breast. (T. 197-198,220-223).

scoped Patient E’s genital area with his index finger without wearing gloves.

April-28, 198 1 visit, Respondent told Patient E that he had to clean out a yeast infection.

Respondent rubbed and

(T. 459).

28 During the

Mycolog cream was prescribed. (Ex. 7, p. 4, T. 459).

27. During the April 28, 198 1 yisit, Dr. Copperman obtained a urine analysis and inspected her genital

area.

Copperman’s office for a follow-up to a

previous office visit on April 11, 1981, where Patient E was diagnosed with a urinary tract infection

and vaginitis and for which

20,1986. (Ex. 7, T. 193,207).

26. On or about April 28, 1981, Patient E presented to Dr.

from on or

about June 26, 1972, through on or about May

1, 1966. Dr. Copperman was Patient E’s physician

436-438,440-441,442-444,449-450).

PATIENT E

25. Patient E is a female born February 2

58-61,84).

24. The medical record maintained by Respondent for Patient C does not accurately reflect the actual

events that occurred during this visit. (Ex. 5, T.

(T.

oki, in the course of purportedly

performing a routine annual physical examination, Respondent told Patient C that he needed to clean

her genital area. Respondent rubbed and touched Patient C’s vaginal area and clitoris with ungloved

hands and Patient C felt what she later realized was an orgasm.

In or about 1980, when Patient C was approximately 16 years

725,742-744,791-792).

23.

22. A breast may be touched or moved during an appropriate examination of the heart and lungs. (T.724-.

1,483,485-486,488-489).

(Ex. 8, T. 477-479,48

232-239,25 1).

35. The medical record maintained by Respondent for Patient F does not accurately reflect the actual

events that occurred during this visit.

(T.

from the waist down and lie

down on the examination table with her legs spread. Respondent told Patient F that she needed a

cleaning. Respondent touched and rubbed Patient F’s genital area with ungloved hands until she had

what she later realized was an orgasm.

the November 29, 1980 visit, Patient F was asked to disrobe

29,198O visit, Dr. Copper-man obtained a urine analysis and inspected Patient

F’s genital area. (T. 474,476).

34. During

(Ex. 7, T. 462).

PATIENT F

3 1. Patient F is a female born July 6, 1962. Dr. Copperman was Patient F’s physician from on or about

January 10, 1970, through on or about May 18, 1984. (Ex, 8, T. 230-l).

32. On or about November 29, 1980, Patient F presented to Dr. Copperman’s office with complaints of

mid-epigastric pain and urinary symptoms. (Ex. 8, p. 4, T. 474).

33. During the November

194,2 17).

The medical record maintained by Respondent for Patient E does not accurately reflect the actual

events that occurred during these visits.

office. (T.

29.

30.

Commencing in or about 1976 when Patient E was 10 years old, Patient E told her mother on more

than one occasion that she did not want to go back to Respondent’s supra

SIXTH and SEVENTH Specifications of the Statement of Charges, and as set forth in Findings of

Fact 7 through 39,

FIFFH,

(McKinney Supp. 2000) as alleged in the FIRST, SECOND, THIRD,

wilfully

harassing, abusing or intimidating a patient either physically or verbally within the meaning of N.Y.

Education Law Section 6530 (3 1)

(I’. 183). Respondent touched and rubbed Patient G’s genital

area with ungloved hands. During this touching Patient G became sexually aroused. (T. 158-162,

178).

39. The medical record maintained by Respondent for Patient G does not accurately reflect the actual

events that occurred during this visit. (Ex. 9, T. 496-499).

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

FIRST: Respondent is found to have engaged in professional misconduct by reason of

(T. 157-158). In the course of performing a routine physical examination, Respondent told Patient G

that she had a blockage in her genital area and that he had to clean it out. Patient G had no urinary

symptoms nor menstrual complaints

offrce to

undergo a precollege physical examination and have a form filled out which was required for college

ln or about the summer of 1978, when Patient G was 17 years old, she went to Respondent’s

(Ex. 9, T. 154, 156).

37. During the course of his treatment of Patient G, Dr. Copperman performed routine annual physicals,

including an examination of the external genitalia. (Ex. 9).

38.

30,1970, through on or about December 27, 1982.

Dr:Copperman was Patient G’s physician from on or

about January

PATIENT G

36. Patient G is a female born September 4, 1960. .

18,24,30, 35,

and 39 supra.

TWENTYNINTH Specifications of the Statement of Charges, and as set forth in Findings of Fact

(McKinney Supp. 2000) as alleged in the TWENTY-THIRD,

TWENTY-FOURTH, TWENTY-FIFTH, TWENTY-SEVENTH, TWENTY-EIGHTH and

p530 (32)

the patient within the meaning

of N.Y. Education Law Section

the care and treatment of

FIFIH: Respondent is found to have engaged in professional misconduct by failing to maintain a

record for each patient which accurately reflects

(McKinney Supp. 2000) as alleged in the TWENTY-SECOND

Specification of the Statement of Charges.

occassion within the meaning of

N.Y. Education Law Section 6530 (3)

--FIRST Specifications of the Statement

of Charges.

FOURTH: Respondent is not found to have engaged in professional misconduct by reason of

practicing the profession of medicine with negligence on more than one

(McKinney Supp. 2000) as alleged in the FIFTEENTH, SIXTEENTH,

SEVENTEENTH, NINETEENTH TWENTIETH and

TWELFI’H, THIRTEENTH and FOURTEENTH Specifications of the Statement of Charges,

and as set forth in Findings of Fact 7 through 39, supra.

THIRD: Respondent is not found to have engaged in professional misconduct by reason of

practicing the profession of medicine with gross negligence within the meaning of N.Y. Education, Law

Section 6530 (4)

(McKinney Supp. 2000) as alleged in the EIGHTH, NINTH,

TENTH,

SECOND: Respondent is found to have engaged in professional misconduct by reason of engaging

in conduct in the practice of medicine that evidences moral unfitness to practice within the meaning of

N.Y. Education Law Section 6530 (20) office visits of these Patients.

10 .

DISCUSSION

It should be noted that Paragraphs C 2, D and D 1 of the Statement of Charges were withdrawn

by Petitioner with Respondent’s consent. Accordingly, Specifications FOURTH, ELEVENTH,

EIGHTEENTH AND TWENTY-SIXTH were deemed to be withdrawn.

In addition, Paragraph G of the Statement of Charges was amended to change “1892” to “1978”.

The Hearing Committee found Patients A, B, C, E, F and G to be credible witnesses. Their delay

in coming forth to report the pertinent facts is understandable. It is predictable behavior for young

women in light of their embarassment, their inexperience with proper gynecological examinations, their

lack of trust in their own responses and their respect for the authority figure of their pediatrician.

Although some of these Patients referred to pelvic examinations, we believe that pelvic

examinations as defined by the medical profession were never performed by Respondent on these

Patients. The Patients incorrectly used the term pelvic examinations because they did not understand its

definition.

We found Respondent not to be a credible witness with respect to his examinations of Patients A,

B, C, E, F and G.

We do not find Dr. Berk’s testimony concerning the Respondent’s medical records for these

Patients to be significant because he was not aware of the testimony of these Patients and could not tell

that the records did not reflect what actually happened during the so-called examinations. We rely instead

upon our reading of the Respondent’s medical records which are in evidence and note that these records

do not accurately record what we are convinced took place during the Eugenia Herbst

,200O

Sheldon H. Putterman, M.D.

Ms.

I December

We fully considered all available sanctions other than the one we hereby impose but determined

that revocation was necessary because of the egregiousness of Respondent’s conduct and his continued

denial of any inappropriate behavior. His inability or unwillingness to recognize what transpired with

these Patients precludes him from taking any remedial action. Only revocation of his license to practice

medicine will ensure protection for the public.

ORDER

The Hearing Committee determines and orders that Respondent’s license to practice medicine be revoked.

Dated New York, NYPENDIX I.Rules is enclosed.

The hearing will proceed whether or not you appear at the hearing. Please note that

requests for adjournments must be made in writing and by telephone to the New York State

Department of Health, Division of Legal Affairs, Bureau of Adjudication, Hedley Park Place,

&d documents, and you may cross-examine

witnesses and examine evidence produced against you. A summary of the Department of

Health Hearing

2000).. The hearing will be conducted before a committee on

‘professional conduct of the State Board for Professional Medical Conduct on July 28, 2000,

at 10:00 a.m., at the Offices of the New York State Department of Health, 5 Penn Plaza,

Sixth Floor, New York, New York, and at such other adjourned dates, times and places as

the committee may direct.

At the hearing, evidence will be received concerning the allegations set forth in the

Statement of Charges, which is attached. A stenographic record of the hearing will be

made and the witnesses at the hearing will be sworn and examined. You shall appear in

person at the hearing and may be represented by counsel. You have the right to produce

witnesses and evidence on your behalf, to issue or have subpoenas issued on your behalf ir

order to require the production of witnesses

(McKinney 1984 and Supp.

(McKinney 1990 and Supp. 2000) and N.Y. State Admin. Proc. Act %301-307 and 401

5230

Merrick, New York 11566

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE:

A hearing will be held pursuant to the provisions of N.Y. Pub. Health Law

STUART COPPERMAN, M.D. I

TO: Stuart Copperman, M.D.

3137 Hewlett Avenue

I HEARING

IN THE MATTER

____________________~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~_~______~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~_~~~~~~

HEAL-l?4

STATE BOARD FOR PROFESSIONAL MEDICAL CONDUCT

NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF @1.8(b), the Petitioner hereby demands disclosure of the evidence that the Respondent

intends to introduce at the hearing, including the names of witnesses, a list of and copies of

documentary evidence and a description of physical or other evidence which cannot be

photocopied.

At the conclusion of the hearing, the committee shall make findings of fact,

conclusions concerning the charges sustained or dismissed, and in the event any of the

charges are sustained, a determination of the penalty to be imposed or appropriate action tc

be taken. Such determination may be reviewed by the Administrative Review Board for

Professional Medical Conduct.

Proc. Act 9401 (McKinney Supp. 2000) and 10 N.Y.C.R.R.

§301(5) of the State Administrative Procedure Act, the

Department, upon reasonable notice, will provide at no charge a qualified interpreter of the

deaf to interpret the proceedings to, and the testimony of, any deaf person. Pursuant to the

terms of N.Y. State Admin.

charae or alleaation not so answered shall be deemed admitted. You may wish to seek the advice of counsel prior to filing such answer. The answer shall be filed with the Bureau of

Adjudication, at the address indicated above, and a copy shall be forwarded to the attorney for the Department of Health whose name appears below. Pursuant to allegations in the Statement of Charqes not less than ten davs prior to the date of the hearinq. Anv

charqes and !$23O(lO)(c). vou shall file a

written answer to each of the

(518-402-0748), upon notice to the attorney for the Department of Health

whose name appears below, and at least five days prior to the scheduled hearing date.

Adjournment requests are not routinely granted as scheduled dates are considered dates

certain. Claims of court engagement will require detailed Affidavits of Actual Engagement.

Claims of illness will require medical documentation.

Pursuant to the provisions of N.Y. Pub. Health Law

433 River Street, Fifth Floor South, Troy, NY 12180, ATTENTION: HON. TYRONE

BUTLER, DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF ADJUDICATION, (henceforth “Bureau of Adjudication”

(Telephone: .

Associate Counsel

Bureau of Professional

Medical Conduct

5 Penn Plaza, Suite 601

New York, New York 10001

(212) 613-2615

,200O

ROY NEMERSON .

Deputy Counsel

Bureau of Professional

Medical Conduct

nquiries should be directed to: Silvia P. Finkelstein

(McKinney Supp. 2000).

YOU ARE URGED TO OBTAIN AN ATTORNEY TO REPRESENT

YOU IN THIS MATTER.

New York, New York

July

§§230-a

THATYOUR LICENSE TO PRACTICE MEDICINE IN NEW YORK

STATE BE REVOKEDORSUSPENDED,AND/ORTHATYOU BE

FINED OR SUBJECT TO OTHER SANCTIONS SET OUT IN NEW

YORK PUBLIC HEALTH LAW

DATED:

THESE PROCEEDINGS MAY RESULT IN A DETERMINATION/

New York State Health Department

Bureau of Professional Medical Conduct

5 Penn Plaza

New York, NY 10001

Fax: 212-268-6774

River Street, Fifth Floor South

Troy, NY 12180

Fax: 518-402-0751

Wetness, etc.)

Signature (of licensee or licensee’s attorney)

This written notice must be sent to either:

New York State Health Department

Bureau of Adjudication

Hedley Park Place

433

I-It-m,

Date of Proceeding

Name of person to be admitted

Status of person to be admitted

(Licensee, Attorney, Member of Law

Licensee’s Name

late of the proceeding. The

notice must be on the letterhead of the licensee or the licensee’s attorney, must be signed by

the licensee or the licensee’s attorney, and must include the following information:

orthe licensee’s attomeytoone of the Department

offices listed below.

The written notice may be sent via facsimile transmission, or an form of mail, but must be

received by the Department no less ‘than two days prior to the

SECURITY NOTICE TO THE LICENSEE

The proceeding will be held in a secure building with restricted access. Only individuals whose

names are on a list of authorized visitors for the day will be admitted to the building

No individual’s name will be placed on the list of authorized visitors unless written notice of that

individual’s name is provided by the licensee born on September 22, 1968, from on or

about October 5, 1968 through on or about February 20, 1989.

ASgenital area with ungloved hands.

Respondent treated Patient B, a female

14,1986.

1. Between in or about 1982, when Patient A was 14 years old and in or

about 1986, when Patient A was 17 years old, on several occasions,

in the course of purportedly performing routine physical examinations,

but not for a legitimate medical purpose, Respondent inappropriately

touched and rubbed Patient

Merrick, New York ‘11566. Respondent treated

Patient A, a female born on October 28, 1968, from on or about July 26, 1977

through on or about October

At all times herein mentioned, Respondent was a pediatrician with offices located at

3137 Hewlett Avenue, South

medicine in New York State on or about September_22, 1961, by the issuance of license

number 086495 by the New York State Education Department.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

STUART COPPERMAN, M.D., the Respondent, was authorized to practice

l~~~_~~~_____________~~______~___~~~~___~~~~~____~~~____-_~~_____~~ I

CHARGES I

I I

STUART COPPERMAN, M.D.

I I

I OF

I I

STATEMENT I

_______________________‘--___“““”’-’_,

IN THE MATTER

,_‘_“_““___------____-_

NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH

STATE BOARD FOR PROFESSIONAL MEDICAL CONDUCT/

On several occasions, when Patient C was an adolescent,

Respondent placed his hand on her left breast and cupped it while

listening to her chest with a stethoscope.

During a subsequent visit, in the course of purportedly performing a

routine physical examination, but not for a legitimate medical purpose,

Respondent inappropriately touched and rubbed Patient C’s genital

area with ungloved hands.

24,1990:

1. In or about 1980, when Patient C was approximately 16 years old, in

the course of purportedly performing a routine physical examination,

but not for a legitimate medical purpose, Respondent inappropriately

touched and rubbed Patient C’s genital area with ungloved hands.

22,1968 through on or about December

1. On or about April 18, 1989, when Patient B was 20 years old, in the

course of performing a physical examination, but not for a legitimate

medical purpose, Respondent put his hand under Patient B’s brassiere

and cupped her breast while purportedly listening to her chest with a

stethoscope.

2. On or about April 18, 1989, when Patient B was 20 years old, in the

course of performing a routine physical examination, but not for a

legitimate medical purpose, Respondent inappropriately touched and

rubbed Patient B’s genital area with ungloved hands.

Respondent treated Patient C, a female born on September 6, 1964, from on or

about April 18,1984.

lo,1970 through on or about May

visited his office.

Respond&t treated Patient F, a female born on July 6, 1962, from on or about

January

E was 10 years old, Respondent

inappropriately performed a pelvic examination every time Patient

20,1986.

1. On or about April 28, 1981, when Patient E was 15 years old, she

presented at Respondent’s office complaining of a yeast infection. In

the course of purportedly performing a physical examination, but not

for a legitimate medical purpose, Respondent rubbed and touched

Patient E’s genital area with ungloved hands.

2. From in or about 1976, when Patient

26,1972, through on or about May

21,1966, from on or

about June

inappropriately touched and rubbed Patient D’s genital area with

ungloved hands.

Respondent treated Patient E, a female born on February

23,1984.

1. In or about 1981, when Patient D was approximately 14 years old,

Patient D presented at Respondents office complaining of vaginal

itching and burning. In the course of purportedly performing a physical

examination, but not for a legitimate medical purpose, Respondent

Respondent treated Patient D, a female born on September 23, 1968, from on or

about December 5, 1972 through on or about February colkge. In the

course of purportedly performing a routine.physical examination, but

not for a legitimate medical purpose, Respondent inappropriately

touched and rubbed Patient G’s genital area ungloved hands.

1. In or about July or August, 1978, when Patient G was 17 years old,

she went to Respondent’s office to undergo a physical examination

and to have a form filled out which was required for

30,197O through on or about December 27, i&’

about January

midepigastric pain. In the course of purportedly performing a physical

examination, but not for a legitimate medical purpose, Respondent

rubbed Patient F’s genital area with his ungloved fingers and until she

had an orgasm.

Respondent treated Patient G, a female born on September 4, 1960, from on or

29,1980, when Patient F was 18 years old,

Patient F presented at Respondent’s office with complaints of

1. On or about November §6530(20)(McKinney Supp. 2000) by engaging in conduct in the practice of the

profession of medicine that evidences moral unfitness to practice as alleged in the facts of

the following:

Educ. Law

committin/g professional misconduct as defined in N.Y.

D.>$!

5. Paragraphs E, E.l and E.2

6. Paragraphs F and F.l

7. Paragraphs G and G.l.

EIGHTH THROUGH FOURTEENTH SPECIFICATIONS

MORAL UNFITNESS

Respondent is charged with

-‘_ 4. Paragraphs D’and

.-. ,~ .:.u

$and C.3

§6530(31)(McKinney Supp. 2000) by willfully harassing, abusing or intimidating

a patient either physically or verbally, as alleged in the facts of:

1. Paragraphs A and A.1

2. Paragraphs B, B.l and 8.2.

3. Paragraphs C, C.1,

Educ. Law

SPECIFICATION OF CHARGES

FIRS-i’ THROUGH SEVENTH SPECIFICATIONS

WILLFULLY HARASSING, ABUSING OR INTIMIDATING

A PATIENT EITHER PHYSICALLY OF VERBALLY

Respondent is charged with committing professional misconduct as defined in N.Y./

21. Paragraphs G and G.l.

$and’DyQ

19. Paragraphs E, E.l and E.2.

20. Paragraphs F and F. 1.

C.2:and C.3.

-18. Paragraphs

C. C.l,

*-\

17. Paragraphs

§6530(4)(McKinney Supp. 2000) by practicing the profession of medicine with

gross negligence as alleged in the facts of the following:

15. Paragraphs A and A.1

16. Paragraphs B, B.l and 8.2.

Educ. Law

Respondent is charged with committing professional misconduct as defined in N.Y.

1‘)

12. Paragraphs E, E.l and E.2.

13. Paragraphs F and F.l.

14. Paragraphs G and G.l.

FIFTEENTH THROUGH TWENTY-FIRST SPECIFICATIONS

GROSS NEGLIGENCE

- 11. Paragraphs b and blj

C.l.C.2 and C.3.

A.1.

9. Paragraphs B, B.l and B.2.

10. Paragraphs C,

8. Paragraphs A and

‘.

i-_.

Paragraphs E.l and E.2.

Paragraphs F. 1.

Paragraph G. 1.

Paragrap@l .I!

C.2 c.2 and C.3.

- 26.

27.

28.

29.

Paragraph A. 1

Paragraph B.l and B.2.

Paragraph

§6530(32)(McKinney Supp. 2000) by failing to maintain a record for each

patient which accurately reflects the care and treatment of the patient, as alleged in the

facts of:

23.

24.

25.

Educ. Law

TWENTY-THIRD THROUGH TWENTY-NINTH SPECIFICATIONS

FAILURE TO MAINTAIN RECORDS

Respondent is charged with committing professional misconduct as defined in N.Y.

G.1.

F, F.l, G and

C.2; C.3, D; D.l‘i E, E.l, E.2,

22. Paragraphs A, A.l, B, B.l, 8.2, C, C.l,

§6530(3)(McKinney Supp. 2000) by practicing the profession of medicine with

negligence on more than one occasion as alleged in the facts of two or more of the

following:

Educ. Law

TWENTY-SECOND SPECIFICATION

NEGLIGENCE ON MORE THAN ONE OCCASION

Respondent is charged with committing professional misconduct as defined in N.Y..

(2000

New York, New York

ROY NEMERSON

Deputy Counsel

Bureau of Professional

Medical Conduct

July 6

_________________________________________________________________________________

State Revokes License Of South Merrick Doctor

By Roni Rabin

Newsday - December 13, 2000

Twelve years after the state Board of Regents dismissed similar charges against him, a state medical board has yanked the license of South Merrick pediatrician Stuart Copperman, saying he fondled at least six female patients between 1978 and 1989.

Copperman, 65, who lives and works at 3137 Hewlett Ave., has been in practice for 35 years. Although his license revocation goes into effect today, he said he is appealing the panel's decision and plans to continue practicing medicine while the appeal is pending.

"I love kids, and most of the time, they love me," Copperman said in a telephone interview yesterday, denying any misconduct. "A proper examination of young adults, females, includes a breast exam and an examination of the external genitalia ... I've always prided myself on being thorough."

Testimony in closed hearings last summer before the state's Office of Professional Medical Conduct showed a striking pattern of behavior: almost all the female patients testified that Copperman fondled them under the guise of giving them a needed "cleaning," according to findings released after the hearings.

Although the young women were between 14 and 20 years old when the incidents occurred, they all had been Copperman's patients since childhood or even infancy. The panel heard expert witness testimony indicating that the delay in making the charges was understandable given how young the women were.

Though they were often too embarrassed to tell their parents about the incidents, one young woman testified that she "asked her parents several times to change doctors." Another 15-year-old "told her mother on more than one occasion that she did not want to go back to Respondent's office," according to testimony.

A 36-year-old Nassau County woman, who yesterday told Newsday she too had been Copperman's patient, said she is still haunted by her experience.

"I feel so sick that I didn't do anything about it," said the woman, who did not testify against Copperman and who asked not to be identified. "I told my parents I didn't think something was right about him. But we all grew up in a very close neighborhood - my brother had been going to him for a very long time."

In a harsh rebuke to Copperman, the state panel cited "the egregiousness" of his conduct and "his continued denial of any inappropriate behavior. "His inability or unwillingness to recognize what transpired with these patients precludes him from taking any remedial action," said a written order by the board's Dr. Stephen Gettinger. "Only revocation of his license to practice medicine will ensure protection for the public."

Since news of the disciplinary action was made public yesterday, more former patients of Copperman have contacted the health department to tell their story, health department spokeswoman Kristine Smith said.

In 1987, similar charges were made by two women, but dismissed by the state Board of Regents. In 1992, disciplinary authority over physicians passed to the state Health Department.

_________________________________________________________________________________

Doc in Molestation Case Wins Round - Pediatrician may see patients during appeal

By Roni Rabin

Newsday - December 15, 2000

A Merrick pediatrician who was stripped of his medical license for sexually abusing patients can continue treating children until a hearing on his appeal Jan. 16, a judge ruled yesterday.

Associate Justice Anthony Carpinello of the Appellate Division of State Supreme Court granted a temporary restraining order against the state health department, which had revoked the license of Dr. Stuart Coppermanafter seven women testified that he had sexually abused them during physical exams between 1978 and 1989. The judge, though, imposed a condition on the doctor, requiring that a chaperone be present during all patient exams.

"We are certainly disappointed, especially so on behalf of the courageous women who came forth and shared these embarrassing details in order to protect others," said Kris Smith, a state health department spokeswoman. "We feel Dr. Copperman received a fair hearing and that the evidence indicated he committed egregious misconduct."

In 1988, a different panel of the Office of Professional Medical Conduct heard similar complaints from different women but dismissed the charges.

Most of the women were in their teens when the abuse occurred. Most said they delayed reporting the abuse because of embarrassment and confusion. But they all described similar behaviors on the part of the physician. They said he told them he needed to "clean" their vaginal area and then rubbed them with ungloved fingers.

Copperman, 65, has run a busy practice in the basement of his 3137 Hewlett Ave. home for almost 40 years. Since the charges were reported in the media, the state health department has gotten telephone calls from additional women who said they had been abused by Copperman.

The number to call to report physician misconduct is 1-800-663- 6114.

There is a five-year statute of limitations for criminal charges of sexual misconduct, but the law allows sexually abused minors to file charges up to five years after they turn 18.

_________________________________________________________________________________

L.I. DOC'S LICENSE AXED State panel says pediatrician groped young patients

By Thomas Zambito

New York Daily News - December 8, 2000

A state panel revoked the license of a leading Long Island pediatrician yesterday after members found he inappropriately touched six female patients during physical exams.

The three-doctor panel of the state Board for Professional Misconduct took the strongest action available to punish Dr. Stuart Copperman, who has a 35-year practice based in Merrick.

The panel determined that revocation was necessary because of the "egregiousness" of Copperman's alleged acts, which date back more than two decades, and his unwillingness to accept responsibility for them.

"Only revocation of his license to practice medicine will ensure protection for the public," said the decision, written by Dr. Stephen Gettinger.

Copperman denied the allegations in an interview last night, calling them the contrived memories of former patients bent on ruining his professional reputation.

"I am not a pervert or a child molester," he said. "I've always lived my life so that someone could never say something bad about it."

He said he expects to prevail on an appeal of yesterday's decision, which followed several days of testimony earlier this year.

Copperman received his license in 1961 and has run a private practice in Merrick since 1965. He said that in some cases, he has cared for three generations of children in the same family.

A past president of the Nassau County chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics, Copperman in 1986 helped develop an exercise video for children and has served on numerous scholarly panels. He maintains a Web site that lists his accomplishments.

The alleged incidents occurred between 1978 and 1989, according to the panel's report. The patients' ages ranged from 14 to 20 at the time of the alleged incidents. Copperman had treated many of them as children, the report said.

In several instances, Copperman continued caring for the same patient for as long as 10 years after the alleged touching occurred, according to the panel. The allegations were not made until the last two or three years.

The panel attributed the patients' delay in reporting the allegations to their embarrassment and their respect for the authority of a doctor.

"Their delay in coming forth to report the pertinent facts is understandable," the panel wrote.

Among the charges the panel listed: In 1982, Copperman allegedly asked a 14-year-old girl to disrobe while her mother was out of the room, then inappropriately touched her during a routine physical examination.

During an April 1989 visit, Copperman allegedly groped a 20-year- old patient's breast and touched her genital area.

_________________________________________________________________________________

More calls rap doc in sex abuse case

By Rus Buettner

New York Daily News - December 13, 2000

Until this week, Long Island pediatrician Stuart Copperman was well-known as a gregarious healer to three generations of children. He cultivated a sterling reputation among his peers, serving as president of the local Pediatric Society. He answered parenting questions in advice columns. He developed anti-smoking and anti-drug programs. But beneath the noble image were horrific allegations of sexual abuse that would lead the state on Monday to revoke Copperman's medical license. Copperman, who is appealing the revocation, which the Daily News revealed yesterday, maintained that the memories of his accusers have been manipulated and that they "misperceived" the exams. "I feel terrible that these people have had this type of memory," he said yesterday. Yet the Office of Professional Medical Conduct, responsible for disciplining doctors, received more calls yesterday from women alleging Copperman molested them in their teens, a Health Department spokeswoman said. "This was not an isolated incident," said Kristine Smith, the spokeswoman. "These women should not blame themselves. And they should not be reluctant to talk to authorities.

" According to the state investigation, Copperman allegedly told patients that he "needed to clean [their] genital area," then rubbed them with his bare hand, often for several minutes, the records said. "Rubbing the female genitalia during a physical examination is always inappropriate, whether or not gloves are used," the records state. Copperman also allegedly held a stethoscope against some of his young patients' chests with one hand, and slipped his free hand under their brassiere, the records state. All the women are now adults. The alleged incidents took place from 1978 through 1989, when the women ranged in age from 14 to 20. Most testified that they didn't understand what had happened until years later. The state brought charges against Copperman in the 1980s, based on similar accusations by two other women, but the state ultimately dropped the case, said Smith, the Health Department spokeswoman. Copperman characterized the older accusations as "nonsense.

" It has been a harsh turnaround for a respected doctor. Copperman, 55, said he put himself through college and SUNY Downstate Medical Center by working in a hardware store and selling encyclopedias. His first internship rotation was on the pediatric ward at Long Island Jewish Hospital in 1960. "I was hooked right then," he said. "I knew instantly that I loved kids.

" Soon after finishing his residency in 1963, he opened a private practice in Merrick, L.

I., where it has thrived ever since. One of his first patients, Darlene Capobianco, recounted the days after her younger sister was hit by a car 25 years ago. "She was in a coma, and he sat at her bedside day and night," Capobianco said. "He loves children. He's just a terrific man.

" Capobianco, 36, now has three children of her own, whom she takes to Copperman. Another woman, who testified during the state disciplinary proceeding, also recalled Copperman's fatherly demeanor. "He was a role model, he was like a god," she told The News. That changed when Copperman touched her inappropriately. "He just told me that there was something suspicious that he needed to check out," she said. She spent years waking up crying and never again went to a male doctor. She said solace came years later, when, as an adult, she finally told her shocked parents and decided to write a letter to state authorities. "My nightmares are gone since the testimony, everything just kind of went out the window," she said. "I just don't want him near kids anymore.

_________________________________________________________________________________

Doc's License Restored But More Female Patients Charge Molestation

By Thomas Zambito

New York Daily News - December 15, 2000

A state judge yesterday reinstated the medical license of a Long Island pediatrician accused of molesting female patients even as state officials reported 19 more women have come forward with new complaints.

The ruling means Dr. Stuart Copperman can resume seeing patients while he appeals Monday's ban by a state Health Department panel.

However, Appellate Division Justice Anthony Carpinello said that Copperman, 65, can only see patients while a female nurse or other health professional approved by the Health Department is in the room.

Copperman, who has practiced in Merrick, L.I., for 35 years, is scheduled to appear at the next round of hearings in his appeal on Jan. 16.

Health Department officials were angered by Carpinello's ruling and vowed to defend the revocation.

"It's very disappointing given the egregious nature of the charges we proved," said department spokeswoman Kristine Smith.

Smith said that since news of Copperman's license revocation was first reported in the Daily News on Tuesday, 19 former Copperman patients have come forward with similar complaints of being molested during physical exams.

The department's Board for Professional Misconduct based its decision on the testimony of six former Copperman patients who alleged that between 1978 and 1989, Copperman fondled their genitalia during physical examinations.

Several said Copperman had touched them under their brassieres while holding a stethoscope in the other hand.

Copperman's Web site says that he's cared for two and three generations of children in the same family. A past president of the Nassau County chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics, he has served on numerous medical panels and in the late 1980s led a spirited anti-tobacco campaign.

He has repeatedly denied the women's accusations, claiming they were contrived. He could not be reached for comment yesterday.

But the state panel rejected Copperman's claims of innocence and cited his unwillingness to accept responsibility as the reason for taking the strongest action possible against him.

One former patient, among the six who made the original claims, was dismayed by the decision.

"This shouldn't be happening," said the woman, who asked not to be identified. "With all the other women who are coming out now, this is absolutely wrong."

_________________________________________________________________________________

After All This Time / Patients come forward to talk of abuse case against LI doc

By Roni Rabin

Newsday - December 18, 2000

He was a pediatrician parents thought they could trust. He took their calls at 4 a.m. He dispensed advice from his Merrick office on everything from baby bottles to temper tantrums. And when the kids grew up, and he told the mothers it was time for a little chat alone with their teenage daughter, the mothers saw no problem.

So when the state health department last week stripped 65-year- old Dr. Stuart Copperman of his medical license after a panel heard six former patients testify that he had sexually molested them, many residents reacted with utter disbelief.

But the complaints, which covered a period of 11 years ending in 1989, did not mark the first time the state had heard sex abuse accusations against Dr. Copperman. Thirteen years earlier two other patients had lodged complaints, but the state panel, dominated by doctors, said they found the charges unbelievable.

State officials say the health department's recent action proves its Office of Professional Medical Conduct has become more rigorous about policing bad doctors. But women who claim they were abused by Copperman say the state made a terrible mistake years ago, and they paid the price.

Within days of the state's announcement last week, scores of additional women contacted the state health department and news media outlets, saying they too had been his patients and had been abused.

"I thought I was the only one," said one anonymous caller who contacted Newsday, crying. "I thought I was crazy."

Copperman, who denies doing anything improper, has won a temporary restraining order that allows him to continue treating children while he pursues an appeal, though he must have a chaperone in the examining room. Responding to his accusers, he said: "If their feeling was that during the examination they felt any sexual connotations, nobody ever told me about it.

"I have a huge practice, and half my practice is second- generation patients, kids I took care of since they were kids," he said. "I have always tried to live my life in such a way that if someone said something bad about me, no one would believe it."

In that, Copperman has long been successful. In the course of 35 years of practice, the doctor always came highly recommended. He was always being written up in the local paper. Mothers trusted him implicitly.

Now, some wondered if they could trust their own judgment.

Sure, there had been rumors about Copperman back in the 1970s and 1980s, mostly circulating among high school girls. "I remember sitting around in high school and talking with other girls and everybody saying the same thing, discussing in detail what he did to us," said Debra Lieberman, now 39 and living in Manhattan. But they did not report anything to teachers, police or health authorities- probably, state health officials say, because teenage girls are generally reluctant to confide embarrassing information and make an accusation about a respected authority figure.

Jeanna Limmer, a 32-year- old New York City school teacher who was raised in Wantagh, was one of the first young women to file a complaint against Copperman back in 1985 and is the only complainant who agreed to be identified by name. She and her mother say the pediatrician set the stage for the alleged molestation over the course of several years by carefully cultivating her mother's trust.

"This was his m.o.," said Jeanna's mother, Elaine Limmer. "When she was about 11, he said to me, 'Soon it will be time to talk with Jeanna alone, without you in the room. Even though you're a loving mother, there are some things she may be more comfortable talking about without you in the room...' He built in me a feeling of confidence."

The pediatrician repeated the statement the following year, and then, when Limmer was 13, her mother left the examining room after the physical, as if on cue. But instead of talking to her, Jeanna said, the doctor told her she had a fungal infection that needed to be scraped off, and he proceeded to rub her genitals with his bare fingers for a period of several minutes.

"Because I trusted him, because I knew him from a young age, I thought what he was doing was okay," said Limmer. "And because he told my mother he needed to see me alone, I thought she knew what he was doing. I thought it was part of the physical exam. Something felt wrong to me. It felt sexual ...I felt a little embarrassed, ashamed, when I came out, but I thought: this is what doctors do."

Limmer said Copperman repeated the behavior on three more visits, but the last "cleaning" in 1983 was more aggressive, lasted longer and left her sore. When her mother asked her if everything was okay, she broke down and told her, in cryptic terms, what had happened.

The Limmers tried to file a criminal complaint against Copperman a year later, but police recommended Jeanna lodge a complaint with the state's Board of Professional Medical Conduct, which she did in 1985. The panel didn't hold a hearing until 1987, when they also heard testimony from another woman who said Copperman "repeatedly rubbed and scratched her vagina and clitoris with his fingers" during a 1982 visit when she was 14.

The panel, which included two physicians and one minister, voted 2- 1 to dismiss the charges, saying they found them "incredulous." None of them could be reached for comment.

Limmer was devastated. The unusual nature of the alleged abuse may have cast an air of implausibility over the charges, but it did nothing to diminish Limmer's sense of being violated. As she matured and became more sexually aware, the wounds only deepened, she said.

"We'll never get over what happened in this family, the violation of trust," said Jeanna's aunt, Alice Zakman. "I saw my beautiful niece go through horrible changes because of this and be horribly scarred...He raped her life. He took away her innocence. He destroyed her self-esteem."

Asked about the charges, Copperman said all he did was perform a standard exam. "If you look at the American Academy of Pediatrics guidelines, it says a proper examination of young adults, females, includes a breast exam and an exam of the external genitalia," he said, adding, "I've always prided myself on being thorough."

Years passed, and Copperman's practice flourished. Then, in 1992, around the same time the state health department implemented reforms in the medical disciplinary process, a new patient came forth with a complaint of abuse. The state was reluctant to proceed, but in 1995, two more abuse charges were filed. Then another patient emerged, and then another. By 1999, the state had seven witnesses. "We felt we had a rock-solid case," an official said.

What was remarkable about the new abuse charges was their striking similarity to the previously dismissed allegations, as well as to each other. A 32-year-old identified only as Patient A testified that when she was 14 years old Copperman asked her mother to leave the room, told her he was going to clean her, and then rubbed her genital area for a few minutes without gloves on-and repeated this every year during her annual physicals.

Patient B, 32, said he rubbed her vaginal area with ungloved hands in 1989, when she was 20 and had gone to him for a physical. Patient C, 36, said that during a 1980 exam Copperman told her he needed to "clean" her genital area and rubbed her.

Patient D changed her mind and decided not to testify at the last minute, but Patient E, 34, said that during a 1981 visit Copperman told her he needed to clean out a yeast infection and rubbed and scraped her genital area with his index finger. Patient F, 38, said that during a 1980 visit the doctor also rubbed her genitals, and Patient G, 40, said that in 1978, when she was 17, the doctor told her she had a blockage in her genital area and then rubbed her with ungloved hands.

"I remember coming home the day it happened and I was crying and said I will never go back to him again," said 32-year-old Patient B, who asked not to be identified by name. "I was in shock that someone I trusted so much had done that; I looked up to him." It took her six years, but she eventually wrote a letter to the state health department about what had happened.

This time the professional medical conduct panel took only two months to deliberate, and it decided to revoke Dr. Copperman's medical license. Its determination was unequivocal. "Rubbing the female genitalia during a physical examination is always inappropriate, whether or not gloves are used," the panel stated.

"We...determined the revocation was necessary because of the egregiousness of the respondent's conduct and his continued denial of any inappropriate behavior," the panel wrote. "Only revocation of his license to practice medicine will ensure protection for the public."

However, many parents continue to support Copperman and are happy that he is being allowed to continue his practice pending appeal. "I'll back him 100 percent, till his license is taken away permanently," said Barbara Mugno, a Merrick mother of two. "I'd hate to start with a new doctor after all these years."

_________________________________________________________________________________

More Woes for Accused Doctor / 4 major health plans drop pediatrician

By Roni Rabin

Newsday - December 20, 2000

At least four major health plans have dropped Merrick pediatrician Stuart Copperman from their panels, and regional hospitals are taking action to suspend his clinical privileges, officials said.

The moves come after his medical license was revoked last week following testimony from former patients who told a state panel he sexually abused them.

Even though Copperman won a temporary restraining order that allows him to practice medicine until further court proceedings, the restrictions may make it difficult for him to see patients.

The court order also requires him to have a state-approved chaperone present during all his contacts with patients, and a state health department official said the department has yet to approve a chaperone.

"He is not to practice medicine until that chaperone is in place," said department spokeswoman Kristine Smith.

The chaperone must be a female registered nurse, nurse practitioner, physician or physician assistant, her presence must be confirmed in writing in patients' charts, and she must have full access both to patients and to patients' charts, Smith said.

Copperman, who denies the charges of sexual abuse, said yesterday that despite the health plans' action, he will be able to practice as soon as he finds a chaperone.

"I have an associate ... as long as they [patients] switch the name of the doctor to his name, so he is being paid by the health plans instead of me."

The state's Office of Professional Medical Conduct stripped Copperman of his license last week after hearing testimony from six former patients who said he had molested them when they were young women. Copperman immediately went to court and secured the temporary stay.

Since reports about the sexual abuse appeared in the news media, however, dozens of additional women have come forward to lodge similar complaints about the pediatrician, including some with complaints dating back to 1970.

Copperman dismissed the new allegations, calling them "me-too's."

Upon hearing that Copperman's license was revoked, at least four major health plans, including Oxford, Vytra, Empire and Physicians Health Services (PHS), have dropped him from their physician networks, although his name still appears in some outdated membership books and on some Web sites.

Most health plans said they were writing letters to members who listed Copperman as their primary-care physician to inform them he is no longer a participating physician.

"Even if the state said, 'We're giving your license back,' he would still have to go through our credentialing process, which includes conduct reviews, medical education, the whole process," said a spokeswoman for Oxford Health Plans.

Winthrop-University Hospital and Nassau University Medical Center suspended Copperman's admitting rights as soon as they were informed of the license revocation. The North Shore LIJ Health System initially planned to postpone action while Copperman pursued his legal appeal, but yesterday, officials said they would take action against the doctor.

"We are in the process of taking steps to suspend his staff appointments and clinical privileges during the period that his license is revoked," said spokeswoman Laura Green.

Winthrop spokesman John Broder said the Mineola medical center is relying on the fact that regardless of the stay, the opinion of the state health department's Office of Professional Medical Conduct remains unchanged.

"The stay is through the courts," Broder said. "We're governed by the department of health ... Our bylaws dictate that because his license is revoked, his privileges at the hospital are suspended."

_________________________________________________________________________________

Conflicting Images of Pediatrician in Molestation Case

By Tina Kelley

New York Times - December 23, 2000

For 35 years, Dr. Stuart Copperman was one of the most prominent and trusted physicians in this tightknit community on Long Island's South Shore. The onetime president of the Nassau Pediatric Society, he was a familiar figure at his temple, a man who saved the lives of neighborhood children, a doctor whom former patients took their children and grandchildren to.

But this month the State Health Department revoked his license because of allegations that he molested some of his teenage patients from 1978 through 1989. Six women whom he had seen as teenagers testified against him, telling similar stories. And since the doctor's license has been revoked, department officials say, dozens more have stepped forward saying he molested them during examinations when they were girls.

Now Dr. Copperman, 65, is appealing the state's decision and trying to restart his practice, all the while denying the allegations against him. The Appellate Division of the State Supreme Court has allowed him to keep his license while he appeals, provided he furnishes a chaperon whenever he sees patients, but the Health Department has yet to approve a chaperon for him.

''I have always treated patients properly,'' he said in a telephone interview on Wednesday. ''The allegations against me were made by two sets of sisters and one other person. Basically they all knew each other, and I cannot address their motivation. I have no idea why they are doing this to me.''

He was cleared of similar allegations in the late 1980's, when two women filed complaints with the Health Department. But over the last five years, six more women approached the Health Department and testified this fall before the department's Board for Professional Medical Conduct, according to official documents.

The accounts of the women are very similar: when they reached puberty, Dr. Copperman often asked their mothers to leave the room so he could talk to the girls about issues that might cause embarrassment. He then would tell them they had a vaginal fungal infection that he needed to clean with his hands. He did not use gloves while rubbing their genitals for several minutes at a time, the women testified.

(NAME REMOVED) 32, a kindergarten teacher in Manhattan, was one of the women to come forward with complaints about Dr. Copperman in the 1980's.

''When I was 12 and went in for my yearly exam, the doctor told my mother that the next year he would be asking my mother to leave the room so we could talk about teenage problems together,'' she said in an interview on Wednesday. ''He told her that it might be a little uncomfortable, so he would want to talk to me alone so that I wouldn't feel inhibited.''

The next two years, when he performed the cleaning procedure on her, scraping her with his nails, she thought it was normal, though she felt uncomfortable with it, (NAME REMOVED) said. When she was 15, she said, he rested his head on the inside of her thigh the whole time. She told her parents, who then switched doctors.

''He knew that all of the girls were at an age when they were the most vulnerable and were not going to tell,'' (NAME REMOVED) said. ''He knew our sexual histories and knew that none of us were sexually active yet, so we wouldn't even know what he was doing. It was very calculating and manipulative. He knew what he was doing, he thought about it beforehand, a year before, and he got away with it.''

_________________________________________________________________________________

They Didn't Believe Her Back Then / Woman relives past as doctor is denied right to his license
By Roni Rabin
Newsday - January 18, 2001

In a story yesterday about Stuart Copperman, the Merrick pediatrician whose medical license was revoked, one woman's quotation was edited so as to be incomplete. The 23-year-old former patient, who was not named and who was in the third and fourth grades when she saw Copperman, said that while the doctor was checking the lymph nodes in her groin, which is appropriate medical care, he also inserted his finger inside her. (pg. A02 NS 1/19/2001)

Her sister's e-mail message hurled Lynne Meyer Tanzman back 30 years to a spring day in 1970, when she pulled a hamstring dancing in a high school kickline and had to limp down Hewlett Avenue in Merrick to see Dr.Stuart Copperman.

Tanzman lives in Tucson, Ariz., now, and the e-mail message she got Dec. 18 from her sister on Long Island read simply, "Dr. Copperman has been brought up on charges of sexual molestation."

"What she said when I called her-I called her immediately-was, 'I'm sorry we didn't believe you,'" Tanzman said.

Tanzman, now 46, is one of several dozen women who have filed formal complaints of medical misconduct against pediatrician Copperman, 65, in recent weeks, incensed by his efforts to regain his lost medical license, according to sources familiar with the investigation.

Yesterday, state officials announced that a five-member panel of the Appellate Division of the State Supreme Court had turned down Copperman's request to continue seeing patients while he tries to win back his license. The judges rejected Copperman's request without examining sealed affidavits detailing the dozens of new complaints filed against him since Dec. 13, when the Office of Professional Medical Conduct yanked his license, saying he had "inappropriately touched" female patients.

Meanwhile, the Nassau district attorney's office and the police special victims unit are investigating a number of recent complaints to see whether criminal charges are warranted, Rick Hinshaw, spokesman for the district attorney's office, said.

Neither Copperman nor his lawyers, T. Lawrence Tabak and Wendy Stimpfl of Lake Success, would comment yesterday, but Copperman said in a previous interview that the new complainants were "me-too's" who concocted stories mimicking news accounts.

Out in Arizona, however, Lynne Meyer Tanzman had no idea Copperman was on the evening news until her sister, Sherry Freiberg, recalling the trauma that almost tore the family apart, contacted her last month. That was partial vindication for Tanzman, who, like many other complainants, said one of the traumatic aspects of the alleged molestation was that no one believed her.

"That's the part that still just tears me up," Tanzman said. "That's been the rough part for me."

Given Copperman's relationship with her family at the time, the disbelief was understandable. The doctor used to shop at Tanzman's father's furniture department in Schiff's Outlet on Fulton Avenue in Hempstead, and he also frequented the pharmacy two doors down, where Tanzman's brother-in-law, Harvey Freiberg, worked.

Nor was he a casual acquaintance;he had been a guest at Freiberg's wedding to Tanzman's sister Sherry in 1967. He was such a trusted family friend that when Tanzman's father died in 1969 of a massive heart attack at age 46, and Tanzman's mother thought she was having heart palpitations, Copperman was the first person she thought to call-even though it was 2 a.m. And he came over.

Just a few months later, Tanzman pulled her hamstring muscle. But even though she went to the doctor with a specific complaint, she said, he told her he wanted to do a physical and instructed her to remove her underwear so he could check for infections.

"I was basically speechless," Tanzman said, adding that he spent a long time touching her with an ungloved hand and inserting his fingers inside her. "It seemed to last forever.

"I remember walking home from his office, totally confused, not understanding, thinking, 'But he's the doctor, maybe that's what he's supposed to do,'" Tanzman recalled. "But it just didn't feel right."

Tanzman told both her older sister and her mother about the incident, but neither believed her. Copperman was married, had a thriving practice and was involved in a lot of charity and community work; she was a 16-year-old girl who, by her own admission, was a "drama queen" starved for attention after her father's death.

"It's kind of like he studied situations and he knew," Tanzman said. "He could have done this the year before, or the year before that, but my father was alive ... My father was a big, strong man."

Tanzman refused to go back to Copperman, and she stopped talking to Sherry for a while when her sister took a job in Copperman's office. Tanzman was not the only former patient who said their experience with Copperman poisoned family relationships; one mother, who asked not to be identified, said her adult daughter is still angry at her for questioning her allegations about the doctor and forcing her to return to him for treatment.

Of the 15 women who contacted Newsday, only one other former patient, Mary Pitti, agreed to be identified by name. Pitti, who grew up in Bellmore, said Copperman molested her in 1973 when she was 13.

"I went to him because I broke my finger, and his office was around the block," Pitti said. "All of a sudden he opened my pants. I was laying down. I said, 'What are you doing?' He said, 'This is part of the physical,' and he stuck his fingers in me."

Pitti immediately told the young man who would become her husband years later, and she confided in her mother and in several friends years later. But she still regrets not filing formal charges against Copperman sooner.

"I feel so guilty that I never said anything. Things were different then," Pitti said. "He was big. He was very well known as a public figure. Who's going to believe a 13-year-old over a public figure like that? And you don't want to be told it's a lie, because you know it's true."

A 23-year-old who contacted Newsday said that Copperman touched her inappropriately during exams when she was in the third and fourth grades.

"He had the gall to do it with my mother in the room ... I would go in for a physical, and he would check the lymph nodes at my throat, under my arm and in the groin area... [CORRECTION: In a story yesterday aboutStuart Copperman, the Merrick pediatrician whose medical license was revoked, one woman's quotation was edited so as to be incomplete. The 23-year-old former patient, who was not named and who was in the third and fourth grades when she saw Copperman, said that while the doctor was checking the lymph nodes in her groin, which is appropriate medical care, he also inserted his finger inside her. (pg. A02 NS 1/19/2001)]" the woman said. "I've been around a lot of doctors since then and I've never, ever, ever had a doctor do this- ever."

Tanzman said she has just one message for parents: "Listen to your children," she advised. "I understand to some extent why they did not believe me. But I just don't think they were listening."

CORRECTION (January 19, 2001): In a story yesterday about Stuart Copperman, the Merrick pediatrician whose medical license was revoked, one woman's quotation was edited so as to be incomplete. The 23-year-old former patient, who was not named and who was in the third and fourth grades when she saw Copperman, said that while the doctor was checking the lymph nodes in her groin, which is appropriate medical care, he also inserted his finger inside her.

An article by James Klurfeld in Viewpoints yesterday and an Ellis Henican column on Wednesday misspelled the middle name of Bill Lann Lee, assistant attorney general for civil rights in the U.S. Justice Department.

John L. Miller-Great Neck North High School produced 10 semifinalists in this year's Intel science competition. A story yesterday carried an incorrect figure.

_________________________________________________________________________________

Did this pediatrician molest his patients?

By Mark Stuart Gill

Ladies Home Journal - June 1, 2001

For almost 40 years, parents on Long Island brought their children to this trusted and well-liked pediatrician. But dozens of his former patients claim that he had a very dirty secret

One April afternoon in 1970 has haunted 46-year-old Lynne Tanzman all her life. Back then, she was a teenager in Merrick, New York, when she pulled a hamstring. She went to see her pediatrician, Stuart Copperman, M.D., whose office was just a few blocks from her house.

Copperman, a onetime president of the Nassau Pediatrics Society, was one of the most prominent and popular pediatricians on the South Shore of Long Island. Tanzman liked the charming doctor, who really seemed to understand and care about kids. In fact, her family was close to the Copperman family. Tanzman baby-sat for the doctor's children; Copperman was a guest at her sister's wedding.

But that afternoon in his office, when Copperman finished checking Tanzman's hamstring, she says he asked her to take off her underwear. "You know," Tanzman says he told her, "your body is going through adolescent changes. It's prone to infection. I need to have a look-see. I want to teach you how to wash properly and make sure you're clean."

Tanzman thought this was odd. "I wasn't there for a general checkup," she says. But she did as she was told. She alleges that Copperman touched her genitals, then proceeded to put his fingers inside her. "I was in shock," recalls Tanzman. "Walking home, I still felt his fingers in me. But I told myself, 'He's the doctor. That's what he's supposed to do.'"

The ultimate betrayal?

Tanzman is just one of dozens of women who say they were molested by the town's most trusted pediatrician when they were teenagers or young adults. Several of the women report in interviews that Copperman hugged them too tightly, made inappropriate comments about their bodies, and in the privacy of the exam room, was often brazen.

Thirty-two-year-old Jeanna Limmer was a patient of Copperman 10 years after Lynne Tanzman. According to Limmer's mother, Elaine, when her daughter was 12, Copperman said that he would need to speak with Jeanna alone during her physical exam the following year. "There are personal things that many adolescents can't discuss in front of . . .

_________________________________________________________________________________

A Complaint Never Forwarded / Woman says report of abuse never referred to state
By Roni Rabin
Newsday - June 6, 2001

lmost nine years before the state yanked a Merrick pediatrician's medical license, a former patient of his channeled her rage and despair into a concise letter of complaint addressed to the Nassau County Medical Society.

"After years of intensive therapy and living with shame, I have decided to come forward and submit a formal complaint against Stuart Copperman, MD, Merrick, Long Island," (NAME REMOVED), now 43, wrote to the society on April 6, 1992. "Dr. Copperman committed sexual abuse against me when I was a child...beginning at the age of 10."

She urged the society to take action to "prevent any other children from being damaged psychologically with the fear, confusion, guilt and anger I have had to endure."

Within days, she received a letter from the chairman of the society's peer review committee, Dr. Sidney Mishkin, who promised to conduct an inquiry.

But even though key officials with the medical society at the time said the complaint should have been forwarded to the state Office of Professional Medical Conduct, which is authorized to discipline physicians, there is no evidence they made the referral. Citing confidentiality rules and a lack of written records, officials with the organization-a professional body that counted Copperman as a member-refused to provide an account of how they disposed of (NAME REMOVED)'s complaint.

(NAME REMOVED) who said she was never referred to the state and never contacted by investigators, recalled receiving a second letter from the society in 1992, which dismissed her charges as unsubstantiated. Mishkin denied sending such a letter, and (NAME REMOVED) said she has misplaced her only copy.

The state was by then already investigating Copperman for the second time on charges of sex abuse of children, and was actively searching for additional complainants to build its case against the 65-year-old pediatrician, who practiced out of his home office at 3137 Hewlett Ave. An earlier state panel in 1988 dismissed similar accusations made by two other patients.

"We investigated every possible victim, everyone brought forward in a complaint, ever," said Kris Smith, a spokeswoman for the state Health Department, speaking of the lengthy investigation during the 1990s, which attempted to gather as many complainants as possible before holding its hearings last year. "If that person [NAME REMOVED] was never contacted by us, we didn't know about it. We contacted everyone whose name was brought to us, even if it was through someone else."

In December, the state revoked Copperman's license after concluding he sexually abused six girls in his care between 1978 and 1989. Copperman is still fighting to regain his right to practice medicine.

Officials with the Nassau medical society say their policy is to refer contentious complaints to the Office of Professional Medical Conduct, but said confidentiality rules prevent them from discussing the case.

"If that case came to me now, I'd say, 'Send her a letter, tell her it's not a matter within our jurisdiction, tell her she has a right to go to the OPMC,'" said Harold Mahoney, who was and still is the lawyer for the Nassau County Medical Society.

But, he added, "That was eight or nine years ago; we were probably trying to be more helpful. Maybe we were trying to point out to the patient what the difficulties were in her situation. I can see a case where maybe it would be very hard for a patient to establish her complaint."

Copperman referred all requests for an interview to his attorney, who declined to comment on (NAME REMOVED)'s allegations. In past interviews Copperman has said he did not act improperly.

The dispute about how (NAME REMOVED's complaint was handled by the medical society raises troubling questions about the role physicians' associations play in disciplining doctors. Though the societies are little more than professional organizations, which have neither the tools nor the expertise to conduct serious investigations, many of them have peer review committees that purport to investigate public complaints about physicians.

Critics such as Art Levin, director of the Center for Medical Consumers in Manhattan, say self-regulation of the profession has proven to be a failure. Even if the medical societies were able to properly investigate their members, they are not licensing bodies and have no enforcement capability, Levin said.

"If they find fault with a physician, what are they going to do- kick him out of the association?" Levin asked.

"They should not pretend to be in this business," Levin said. "Our fear is they exist as a way to defuse the situation. A person calls, makes a complaint, feels they've done what they can do, and they're told, 'No action can be taken,' and the person goes away."

A spokeswoman for the Medical Society of the State of New York, the umbrella organization for local medical societies, said the state body still refers patients with complaints to their local medical society, and sends them to the state authorities only if their county has no medical association.

(NAME REMOVED), who grew up in Merrick and now lives in Laguna Niguel, Calif., said she turned to the county medical society on the advice of a therapist, and was unaware of the state's Office of Professional Medical Conduct. For years, she said, she had chronic depression and feelings of self-loathing and guilt that she attributed to the alleged abuse. Her mother, now deceased, insisted on taking her to Copperman twice a year for checkups between 1967 and 1970, (NAME REMOVED) said; On each occasion, she said, Copperman rubbed her genitals with his hands until "it hurt."

When she complained to her mother, her mother did not believe her, (NAME REMOVED) said, a recollection supported by her aunt, P(NAME REMOVED) of Jamesburg, N.J., who remembered the mother discrediting her daughter's story years ago.

(NAME REMOVED), who was interviewed several times for this story, acknowledged suffering lifelong mental health problems, which she blames on the alleged abuse. When she was in her 20s, she became a drug addict, which resulted in her contracting hepatitis C. She has been admitted to the hospital 35 times for depression, has undergone electric shock therapy, attempted suicide twice, and suffers from chronic fatigue, eating disorders and self-mutilation behaviors as well as numerous physical ailments.

"He took away my whole sense of being," (NAME REMOVED) said of her former pediatrician. Explaining her past drug use, she said, "I didn't do it to experiment. I did it to rid myself of thoughts...I didn't want to feel anything. I had the worst feelings of shame, you can't imagine."

In 1992, a therapist suggested (NAME REMOVED) who then lived in Garden Grove, Calif., file a formal complaint of misconduct against Copperman with the local medical society. Her then-fiance, Michael Walo, a Huntington Beach, Calif., engineering manager at Boeing, helped her draft a sober, three-paragraph letter.

The letter clearly indicated she was willing to testify. "Although the incidences occurred 20 to 25 years ago, I remember every incident as if it happened yesterday...I will stand strong by my statements and pursue this extremely solemn matter."

(NAME REMOVED) received an acknowledgment letter, written on medical society letterhead, dated April 13, 1992, and signed by Mishkin. She said a second letter she received later rejected her allegations as unsubstantiated, and noted that Copperman was a respected figure in the medical community. She has misplaced that letter, she said, but Walo told Newsday he had a similar recollection of the letter.

Mishkin, who signed the first letter to (NAME REMOVED) vehemently denied writing a second letter. He agreed her complaint should have been referred to the state -but by someone else in the society.

"That's not my job...," he said. "What can I tell you -it's not my problem."

In fact, state public health law requires physicians who are aware of misconduct by another doctor to report it to state health authorities, and the law specifically binds physician members of medical societies and peer review committees.

"The law says...you must report it, or you yourself are committing misconduct," Smith said.

Mishkin and the doctors who were co-chairs of the committee at the time, Paul Hamlin, Daniel J. Nicoll and Richard P. Stechel, said in recent interviews they had no recollection of the old accusation against Copperman, even though he was a prominent member of the society. Copperman had chaired the mental health committee in the 1980s and was active in the society's academy and public health, library and pediatric committees in the 1990s; he was also prominent in the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Nassau Pediatric Society, which to this day lists him as an active physician on its Web site.

The executive director of the society, Mark Cappola, who still holds the position, declined to discuss the case, saying all peer review proceedings were confidential. Both he and Mahoney, the lawyer, said the society destroys all paperwork every two years and does not keep copies of the letters sent out to complainants, even though the Medical Society of the State of New York suggests they keep records of "the complaint received and information disseminated."

The state society's guidelines also state clearly that even if the county body concludes a complaint is unjustified, its officials should advise the complainant that "if he is dissatisfied with the findings, he ...may file a complaint with the OPMC against the physician."

None of the Nassau County Medical Society officials interviewed remembered referring (NAME REMOVED) or her complaint to the Office of Professional Medical Conduct, and Cappola declined to provide Newsday a copy of the peer review committee's guidelines.

Mishkin, the committee chair, said it was Cappola's responsibility to forward the complaint to the state; later in the same interview, he said the matter should have been handled by a different committee in the medical society, the board of censors, which also plays a role in reviewing professional conduct.

Mahoney, the society's attorney, acknowledged the physician members of the medical society are ill-equipped to investigate serious charges like (NAME REMOVED) s. They do not have subpoena power, and cannot compel witnesses to appear, he said.

"At that time, which is not what we're doing now, they usually wrote to the doctor and gave him a copy of the letter and asked him for his response," Mahoney said. "What's wrong with that? How can they get a response...if they don't know what it is?"

But, he conceded, "What you end up with is getting a Mexican standoff, one says this, and one says that."

Like other society officials, he said he was "sure" (NAME REMOVED) would have been referred to the Office of Professional Medical Conduct, but was unable to provide any record of the referral.

(NAME REMOVED) was never called to testify about Copperman last year when the state held hearings. The transcripts do not reveal witnesses' names, but none of them match (NAME REMOVED) s description.

She still wishes she had been given a chance to testify against her former pediatrician.

"I attribute my failure in life to his molestations," she said. "I was a really, really bright girl, but I've always been afraid...He ruined my life."

_________________________________________________________________________________

Local Web Site Still Lists Doc

By Roni Rabin

Newsday - June 6, 2001

It has been almost six months since the state revoked Stuart Copperman's medical license, but the Nassau Pediatric Society Web site still lists him as a physician, providing links to a Web page that advertises his office hours-without any warning to the public that he is not allowed to practice.

The Web site, last updated on May 21, says Copperman is a fellow of the American Academy of Pediatrics. But in order to be a member of the academy, a doctor must be board certified in a specialty-and that requires a valid medical license.

Asked why the Nassau Pediatric Society continues to list Copperman as a pediatric specialist, Dr. Ron Marino, the president of the society, told Newsday the former doctor is still appealing the state's decision to revoke his license.

Marino, who declined to comment further, did not express surprise that Copperman's name was still listed on the site, which is meant to be a public resource.

A state Health Department official, Kristine Smith, said the state considers the revocation of Copperman's license to be a final action, and characterized the Web site information as "not helpful."

"Since he is the subject of a license revocation, that sort of information might be confusing to members of the public who would use that site to choose a doctor," Smith said. "He is not by law allowed to practice medicine, and if he does, he's committing a felony."

Copperman has been a very involved member of the pediatric association, serving as president from 1996 to 1997. He still chairs its environmental health and smoking committee.

The society, a nonprofit organization, states on its Web site that its objectives are "to improve the health and welfare of all infants, children and adolescents and young adults in Nassau County" and to "promote excellence in pediatric care."

Another objective is "to further the spirit of good fellowship amongst the pediatricians of this section."

The state yanked Copperman's medical license last year after six women testified he had molested them between 1978 and 1989 when they were his patients. Copperman is appealing to the Appellate Division of State Supreme Court.

_________________________________________________________________________________

Congregant in Scandal Shakes Up Temple
By Alice Sparberg Alexiou
New York Times - September 23, 2001

SOUTH MERRICK— FOR Jews around the world, the Days of Awe, which this year began last Monday night and end on Thursday with Yom Kippur, are a time to look inward and seek forgiveness for their sins. But congregants at Temple Beth Am in South Merrick, a tightly knit and well-to-do town, are engaging in particularly intense soul-searching this year as they agonize over their response to accusations against one of their most prominent members.

The congregant is Dr. Stuart Copperman, 66, a pediatrician who cared for three generations of children at his in-home office at 3137 Hewlett Avenue in Merrick. Last December, he was stripped of his medical license after the state Bureau of Professional Medical Conduct found that between 1978 and 1989 he had sexually molested six female patients, then teenagers.

The ruling came after a hearing in the summer of 2000 at which the six women testified in graphic detail and described the psychological difficulties they experienced after the incidents.

Dr. Copperman has not been accused of a crime; the state's finding is one of administrative law. As for possible criminal charges, the statute of limitations that applied to the cases involving the six women has expired. Under the present law, the state can prosecute until five years after an accuser turns 18.

Joseph Tacopina, Dr. Copperman's lawyer, said he had instructed his client not to comment directly to a reporter but ''adamantly maintains his innocence'' and is appealing the revocation of his license.

Temple Beth Am has taken no official position on Dr. Copperman's case. But the temple's rabbi, Ronald Brown, wrote a letter to a local newspaper in support of him. In the letter, written last December when the doctor's license was revoked, the rabbi described Dr. Copperman as ''a caring person and dedicated physician,'' adding that he had known Dr. Copperman for many years and that he had taken care of the rabbi's own children. Rabbi Brown wrote that he regarded the doctor as ''a person to whom I can trust the care of those I love.''

Rabbi Brown is also vice president of the North American Board of American Rabbis, which was formed last year to improve dialogue between Judaism's Reform, Conservative and Orthodox branches. He did not respond to numerous telephone calls seeking comment. But his public support for Dr. Copperman has made many congregants angry, said Betsy Brody, a Beth Am congregant for 28 years and a member of its board of directors at the time the allegations against Dr. Copperman became public.

''There was a lot of mumbling and grumbling'' about the letter, she said, but complaints to the rabbi were made in private. Dr. Copperman, she said, was an embarrassment to the temple.

The congregation is divided about the case. Many people interviewed for this article, both in Merrick and in nearby towns where Dr. Copperman's patients live, refused to be quoted by name. Several used the word ''god'' to describe the doctor's former status.

The doctor and his wife, Renee, are longtime members of Temple Beth Am, and generous donors. They have three children, two daughters and a son, Alan Copperman, who is also a physician. Stuart Copperman was once president of the Nassau Pediatric Society, and has been active in local anti-smoking and anti-drug campaigns. He has written educational videos for Disney -- one was called ''Growing Up Female'' -- and advice columns for magazines. Many mothers who brought their babies to him adored him.

''People were saying, 'This is not the Stewie Copperman that most of us know,' '' Ms. Brody said. ''He's a super-duper nice man, and he has a wonderful family. But he obviously has serious problems.''

Mr. Tacopina, the doctor's lawyer, said Beth Am members had sent him more than two dozen letters of support for Dr. Copperman.

But Debra Lieberman, 39, who came forward after the six women testified against Dr. Copperman to say that she too had been abused by him as a teen-age patient, said that after she was quoted in several newspaper articles, she received about 10 calls from others who said they also had been abused by the doctor. Kristine Smith, a spokeswoman for the state Health Department, said that after Dr. Copperman's license revocation became public, dozens of women got in touch with the department to report abuses, as well.

Mr. Tacopina said Dr. Copperman's supporters fuel his desire to continue to defend himself. Mr. Tacopina said that supporters include synagogue members, former patients as well as family and friends. Dr. Copperman's son-in-law, Jay Freedberg, has set up a defense fund, which presently contains about $11,000, Mr. Tacopina said.

Ms. Brody, who said she was no longer a member of the board and was not speaking in any official capacity, said she doubted that the temple would ask him to resign.

''If you commit a crime, you suffer the consequences,'' Ms. Brody said. ''But that doesn't mean you should be thrown out of a religious institution.''

''Everybody is heartbroken for him and his family,'' she added, as well as for the female patients. Still, she said: ''I just wish the publicity would die. I just think enough is enough. He is not permitted to practice. He doesn't have a source of income now. I think he's being punished enough.''

Meanwhile, for the women who have accused Dr. Copperman, life has been difficult. Ms. Lieberman, who said the doctor molested her three times, when she was 8, 9 and 10, said that when she first complained to her parents, they did not believe her.

''My mother said: 'I just can't believe it. A nice Jewish doctor from Long Island doesn't do things like that,' '' Ms. Lieberman said.

Photo: Temple Beth Am in South Merrick has been shaken by accusations against a member, a pediatrician who has lost his license. (Phil Marino for The New York Times)

_________________________________________________________________________________

The Rabbi Defends the Pediatrician

By Alice Sparberg Alexiou

Lilith Magazine - December 31, 2001

He was perfect: self-assured, with sterling credentials, and generations of adoring mothers entrusted their children to him. He was active in his community, and in his Reform synagogue. So when the New York State Health Department last December revoked the license of Dr. Stuart Copperman, 66, after an investigation revealed that he had sexually molested six female patients, the affluent Long Island community where he had practiced pediatrics for 35 years went into convulsions, followed by denial.

Over and over again, people in Merrick, New York, where Dr. Copperman had his in-house office, said that they couldn't believe that the good doctor, whom many described as "like a god," had committed the hideous acts of which he was accused. One woman, who said she had known the doctor and his family for years, speculated that the young women who testified were all pathological liars. Six former patients, now adults, had testified to a state panel in the summer of 2000 that Dr. Copperman had molested them when they were teenagers. Their allegations of the abuse were strikingly similar, and graphic: the doctor, after telling their mothers that he wanted to talk to their daughters in private, would then perform a "vaginal cleaning" with his bare fingers. Moreover, after the story hit the media, dozens of additional women came forward with testimony, both to the media and to the State Health Department. Debra Geller Lieberman, 39, said that the doctor had molested her three times, when she was 8, 9, and 10.

Lieberman's father, also a doctor, was a colleague of Dr. Copperman. But, said Lieberman, when she later complained to her mother, the response she got was "a nice Jewish doctor from Long Island just doesn't do things like that."

Dr. Copperman has not to date been accused of a crime, although the Nassau County District Attorney continues to investigate the case. Revocation of his medical license was done under the state's administrative law, which states that he can seek to reclaim it after three years.

Shortly after the story broke in Long Island Newsday last December, Rabbi Ronald Brown, rabbi of Dr. Copperman's synagogue, Temple Beth Am of Merrick, where the doctor was a generous donor, wrote a letter to the local paper stating that the pediatrician "was a caring person and a dedicated physician," that he had known the doctor for years, that the doctor had taken care of the rabbi's own children, and that Dr. Copperman was "a person to whom I can entrust the care of those I love."

And while this public support of Dr. Copperman made many congregants angry, the rabbi did not retract his letter. One woman who did not want to be identified, said that "the rabbi is still the rabbi, and you have to forgive him. Rabbi Brown didn't know all the facts."

Reporting this story for The New York Times this past September reminded me how risky it is for a woman to tell the truth, especially when she is going up against powerful men like the rabbi and the pediatrician. Nearly everybody I interviewed for the story later expressed regret for having commented on the case. A woman from the congregation who had agreed to be quoted called a few days later, her voice shaking with anger, as she accused me of "trying to embarrass our temple." Then another woman whom I had interviewed, whose daughter had been the first victim to come forward, screamed at me over the telephone after the Times article ran for supposedly "whitewashing" the doctor. Never again, she told me, would she speak to a reporter. I told her that however much she hated the way I had told the story, she had done the world a service by talking to me. How else would the victims' voices have been heard?

_________________________________________________________________________________

FAIR USE NOTICE

Some of the information on The Awareness Center's web pages may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc.

We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.

For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml . If you wish to use copyrighted material from this update for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

_________________________________________________________________________________

"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has."-- Margaret Mead

_________________________________________________________________________________

Saturday, December 23, 2000

Case of Stuart Copperman, MD

Conflicting Images of Pediatrician in Molestation Case

No comments:

Post a Comment