Former Patients File New Complaints in Sexual Assault Case

Lawyers representing former patients of a military doctor at the center of a widening sexual assault case say they have filed five new federal civil complaints against the Army and the Defense Department Monday for failing to protect them from abuse.

The claims follow a decision by the doctor's defense attorneys to bypass a preliminary hearing in the criminal matter, claiming the case is a "witch hunt" and accusing military prosecutors of plotting to "ambush the defense" with information related to three additional accusers.

The physician, Maj. Michael Stockin, is facing allegations of improper touching from at least 39 alleged victims. Attorneys for the doctor's alleged victims say they believe more patients could step forward, and the prosecution could grow to become one of the largest military sexual assault cases in history. Stockin says he has been wrongly accused and is innocent.

Stockin, an anesthesiologist at Madigan Army Medical Center on Joint Base Lewis McChord, in Washington, has been suspended from patient care.

Five individuals who were former patients of Stockin have come forward as accusers. They spoke with CBS News on the condition of anonymity due to the ongoing nature of the case. According to the alleged victims, a similar pattern occurred during their appointments at the pain management clinic. When left alone with patients, Stockin would allegedly instruct them to undress and proceed to examine their lower body, engaging in inappropriate touching.

Article 32 preliminary hearing

The Article 32 preliminary hearing allows the accused party to waive their right to the hearing. It serves as an opportunity for prosecutors to present evidence supporting the charges. If the hearing officer determines there is probable cause, the case is then referred to the commander who decides whether it will proceed to court martial.

Robert Capovilla, an attorney representing Stockin, stated that his client chose not to participate in the preliminary hearing due to the alleged victims' refusal to testify about the facts of the case and answer questions from the defense team. Capovilla also claimed that the government initially refused to produce the law enforcement agents involved in the investigation as witnesses, citing their lack of relevance. He further suggested that the government intended to surprise Stockin with information about additional accusers during the hearing.

The Army declined to respond to the defense's claims, citing the ongoing investigation. Statutorily, alleged victims have the right not to testify at preliminary hearings, and it has become increasingly rare for them to do so in recent years. Typically, victims provide their testimony during the court martial process.

The Article 32 hearing, originally scheduled to take place on Joint Base Lewis McChord, in Washington state, last Thursday, has been postponed. This hearing, which is similar to a grand jury process in civilian courts, requires prosecutors to show probable cause. However, in military procedure, the accused is charged before a preliminary hearing is held to determine probable cause.

The defense claims that the alleged victims had refused to testify at the hearing, but attorney Ryan Guilds, who represents several of Stockin's accusers, disputes this claim. Guilds states that the alleged victims were not contacted to testify and that it is atypical for accusers to take the witness stand at this stage.

Guilds adds, "The time for discovery and cross examination will come. It's called trial. And my clients are very much looking forward to that day."

Meghan Tokash, a former Army special victim prosecutor and member of the defense secretary's 2021 Independent Review Commission on Sexual Assault in the Military, explains that it has become uncommon for law enforcement or victims to testify at preliminary hearings. This is because testimony at an Article 32 hearing is taken under oath, and inconsistencies in that testimony can be used for cross examination at trial. Instead of testimony, prosecutors may submit alternative forms of evidence, such as recorded or written statements to law enforcement, for the preliminary hearing officer's consideration.

Some argue that it should not be uncommon for victims to testify at the hearings, as it helps establish evidence on the record. Retired Col. Don Christenson, a former chief prosecutor for the Air Force and Air Force judge, believes it is a missed opportunity. He states, "There can be a benefit to having the accused sitting there hearing victim after victim after victim say 'this guy did this to me.'"

Recent scrutiny has been placed on the Article 32 process, which has been criticized for functioning as a "rubber stamp." A report by the Defense Advisory Committee on Sexual Assault in the Military in June 2023 revealed that the military had been sending sexual assault cases to court martial, even after a hearing officer found no probable cause. This has resulted in many acquittals in such cases.

The Army Charges Major Stockin with Sexual Misconduct

The Army has not made the charging sheet publicly available, but Army officials have confirmed that Major Stockin is facing charges of abusive sexual contact and indecent viewing in violation of military law. Last month, the government brought additional charges, including seventeen more accusers. Experts and advocates who work with survivors anticipate that more alleged victims could still come forward. If more charges are added, another Article 32 hearing will be convened on the new specifications.

Lieutenant Colonel Jennifer J. Bocanegra, an Army spokesperson, emphasized that "Major Stockin is presumed innocent until proven guilty at trial."

The charges are now in the hands of Stockin's brigade commander, and it is unclear when the case will be set for trial.

President Biden signed an executive order over the summer that changes the Uniform Code of Military Justice. This order transfers the decision to prosecute in cases of sexual assault, domestic violence, child abuse, murder, and other serious crimes from commanders to specialized independent military prosecutors. The change comes after years of pressure on the military from Congress and victims' advocates to remove commanders from prosecutorial decisions for major crimes, particularly in cases of sexual assault. This change will go into effect in December.

"We look forward to receiving all of the discovery in the government's possession, and we will not settle for anything less than a fair trial," said Capovilla, the defense attorney representing Major Stockin.

The civil complaints against the Army

Attorney Christine Dunn represents seven of Stockin's former patients who allege he abused them while in his care. She and her colleagues at the law firm Sanford Heisler Shard, have filed the civil complaints under the Federal Torts Claims Act, which allows individuals to bring claims against federal agencies for wrongs committed by personnel of that agency. The additional administrative complaints filed Monday are the first step toward filing a lawsuit for monetary damages. 

CBS has reviewed six of the seven claims filed, and in each the alleged victims claim to have been "severely and irreparably harmed."

"Had the Army better screened Dr. Stockin when hiring him, or better supervised his patient interaction, Dr. Stockin would not have been in a position to sexually abuse me and other patients," some of the complaints say. "The fact that Dr. Stockin was able to sexually abuse so many patients is evidence that the Army was negligent in its supervision of Dr. Stockin."

Dunn has previously filed two other civil claims on behalf of Stockin's former patients that she says are now being investigated by the Army.

"These soldiers thought they could trust a U.S. Army doctor but he abused that trust in the most egregious way," Dunn said in a statement. "The massive scope of the sexual abuse indicates that the Army was negligent in supervising Dr. Stockin."

Under current law, servicemembers injured while on active duty are unable to sue the military. However, a 2022 ruling in the 9th circuit opened the door for survivors after the court found that sexual assault was not a "incident to military service."