Reputations, career on line

A radiologist who was sued wins the sexual harassment case, but it's not over yet.

By JOHN FRANK, Times Staff Writer
Published December 10, 2007

BROOKSVILLE - Four years ago this month, Dr. Dilip Mehta's career as a top radiologist in Hernando County began to crumble.

Karen Flatau, a female co-worker and his patient at Oak Hill Hospital, filed a sexual harassment lawsuit alleging he inappropriately touched her while at work. Weeks later, hospital administrators dropped an exclusive radiology contract with Mehta's practice, Spring Hill Radiology.

In rare public fashion, turmoil erupted at one of the county's main hospitals.

An internal hospital review board began an investigation, as did the Consumer Services Unit at the Florida Department of Health.

Mehta, 48, formerly the medical director of Oak Hill's radiology department, filed two federal lawsuits against the hospital in 2005 and 2006, alleging they discriminated against him based on his Indian ethnicity.

Then, three other female hospital staffers and a court reporter came forward with allegations that Mehta sexually harassed them, too.

More broadly, the revelations cast a dark shadow on the hospital, where tensions flared among many American and foreign-born doctors after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

Now fast forward to 2007, and the story is much different for Mehta. The internal hospital review determined Flatau's claims lacked sufficient reliability, according to court documents. He lost the two lawsuits he filed against the hospital but still continues to practice at Excel Medical Imaging in New Port Richey. And recently, a Hernando County jury of two men and four women acquitted Mehta in Flatau's civil sexual harassment lawsuit.

His record is clean, but the damage is done, said his attorney, Jeff Goodis of Tampa. Mehta did not return calls seeking comment for this story.

Flatau, the wife of a vascular surgeon at Oak Hill, said she's not satisfied. On Thursday, a day before Friday's deadline, she decided to ask for a new trial based on procedural rulings made by the judge. "I feel that I didn't lose," she said. "The next little girl that crosses his path is going to lose."

Reputation on trial

During the three-day trial that began on Nov. 26, Flatau recounted the alleged incident that sparked the lawsuit:

On May 15, 2003, she took some X-rays to Mehta, who was in the radiology lab reading patient's films. As they talked, a test fire alarm rang and shut the office door automatically. "He said ... 'Is someone trying to tell us something?'" she recalled.

Before she left, he asked for a hug. She bent down to give him a "social" hug when he "grabbed my breast and stuck his tongue in my mouth and wiggled it around," she said, demonstrating for the jury.

Her reaction, she testified: "I was shocked. I just had to get out of there." She let the incident stew for months before filing the lawsuit. Flatau said it was a difficult time for her and her family.

In cross-examination, the defense attacked her account and tried to dissolve her credibility as a witness. Goodis focused on the time line, saying based on fire alarm logs and Mehta's work logs from the radiology lab, there was no time for the alleged incident to have occurred. Later, he put Mehta on the stand and he denied anything ever took place.

"My assumption is they didn't believe Karyn Flatau," Goodis said. "Obviously, the jury found his story more compelling."

Message from judge

Brooksville attorney Bruce Snow represented Flatau. He said his client's case could have been stronger, but senior Circuit Judge Charles Harris refused to allow three former hospital staffers and a court reporter to testify about how Mehta inappropriately touched them. He filed an appeal for a new trial Thursday because of the judge's ruling on that issue.

"We believe the testimony of the other victims was very material to the case," Snow said, "and when that was not allowed, it made it the classic he-said, she-said. ... This is a reason so many victims are hesitant to come forward."

Harris heard the women recount their stories in court, but outside the presence of the jury.

One woman, a former ultrasound stenographer, testified that Mehta repeatedly fondled her breast during procedures with patients.

"I was afraid to tell anyone because I was a single mom and ... I didn't want to lose my job," she said. "And I know that even though hospitals say ... they will back you, I know that the doctor's word is always right."

Harris ruled that the women's testimony was too legally dissimilar and it did not prove Snow's argument that it showed Mehta had the constant opportunity for this type of behavior.

The judge did make some personal asides, directly addressing Mehta in court.

"It's not my decision to determine the believability of these witnesses in this case," he said. "That's not my role as judge in a jury trial. If it were, I tell you that I find their testimony believable and I would be concerned, doctor, that you address this problem."

Without these women's testimony, the jury deliberated for three hours before returning a verdict in favor of Mehta.

But for Flatau, the judge's words meant a lot. "The reason I did this," she said, "is because I know he has a problem."

John Frank can be reached at jfrank@sptimes.com or (352) 754-6114.

[Last modified December 9, 2007, 20:22:46]