The claim is against the institutions
Civil claims arising from this litigation are brought against the medical institutions that
employed Dr. Paduch, credentialed him, scheduled his appointments and were responsible for
supervising his practice, not only against him personally.
The recurring questions are institutional ones: what the employer knew, whether earlier
complaints were made and what happened to them, whether chaperone policies existed and were
followed, and whether anyone reviewed his appointment patterns.
Why patients did not raise it at the time
Many of the survivors in this litigation were young men and adolescents attending for
urological treatment, where intimate examination is a legitimate part of care. That is precisely
what makes the setting exploitable: a patient has no baseline for what is normal, and the person
defining normal is the doctor.
Not objecting at the time is the ordinary response and does not weaken a claim.
Described as professional experience only. Every case is decided on its own facts, and prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
Do I need to have been a patient for a long period?
No. A single appointment can be the basis of a claim.
What if I do not have my medical records?
They can be obtained. Institutional records (appointment histories, billing, credentialing files) are usually more important than anything a patient holds.
Is it too late to join?
That depends on the facts and on where the litigation stands. It is worth asking promptly rather than assuming either way.