CLEVELAND — The former lab director who oversaw the University Hospital fertility tanks that malfunctioned and destroyed thousands of eggs and embryos says his career is in shambles because the truth of what led to the 2018 failure is not being told.
Dr. Andrew Bhatnager, through his attorney and court documents, is also critical of what he said was attempts by UH to unmask the names of potential victims, who have sought privacy and anonymity as Jane Does.
After three years of being represented by UH-retained attorneys at the Tucker Ellis law firm, Bhatnager has now retained his own attorney in an effort to restore his reputation.
It was in March 2018 when it was learned that a mechanical failure at the UH fertility clinic caused storage tank temperatures to rise, destroying in the process over 4,000 eggs and embryos belonging to about 1,000 patients.
Lawsuits and settlements with hundreds of patients have followed. UH says the final case is in Geauga County Common Pleas Court where Bhatnager’s letter and motions for a new attorney were filed last week.
In announcing the move, Bhatnager’s new attorney, Subodh Chandra, wrote a letter to UH attorneys condemning their efforts and “for failing to advance the truth of what transpired in the fertility clinic…”
Chandra wrote that the attorneys failure “…to reveal the roles of other University Hospital employees and the third-party vendor, have rendered [Bhatnager] unemployable.”
On Tuesday, Chandra spoke exclusively to 3News Investigates.
“Dr. Bhatnagar's view is that those things haven't come out clearly in the various litigation processes and they haven't come out clearly because his view is University Hospitals has been more protective of itself than it should have also been of him and perhaps others who had no responsibility for it whatsoever,” Chandra told 3News Investigates.
“And they've done that because, again, they're trying to be more protective of their own liability than they were of Dr. Bhatnager’s reputation.”
In a statement to 3News on Tuesday, a UH spokesman refuted the claims and said Bhatnager has not raised any concern over the legal representation provided to him by Tucker Ellis attorneys.
“…we are confident that Tucker Ellis has represented the interests of Dr. Bhatnager effectively and ethically. Indeed, in the three plus years that Tucker Ellis has represented Dr. Bhatnager, University Hospitals and other parties, Dr. Bhatnager has never once objected to their representation or raised concerns of a conflict of interest.”
Chandra said Bhatnager’s frustration came to a head earlier this year after Tucker Ellis attorneys filed motions seeking to remove the Jane Doe pseudonym now attached to the lawsuit in Geauga County.
“Those kinds of aggressive tactics are really not only, as Dr. Bhatnagar said in his affidavit morally repugnant, but they really are just bad lawyering because eventually the truth is going to come out,” Chandra said.
He would not comment on specifics about what Bhatnager will say if he testifies. He would not permit Bhatnager to comment to 3News Investigates.
But, he said, “it is accurate to say that Dr. Bhatnager is not responsible for what occurred in the lab. That truth will come out. And it is also accurate to say that others are [responsible] and that truth has not come out.”
At issue as well are the names of the unidentified plaintiffs. UH said in its statement that attorneys representing an unnamed plaintiff filed a lawsuit in federal court in which the client was not a fertility patient of UH and was not affected by the March 2018 malfunction.
That case led to the filing in Geauga County.
In seeking the names of the plaintiffs, UH attorneys say the Jane Doe tags prevents them from investigating the merits of the claim.
In their statement, UH officials said: “Regardless of Dr. Bhatnager’s position on the matter, there are court rules and procedures for filing cases anonymously, and plaintiffs’ counsel failed to meet even these threshold obligations. These rules govern the disclosure of the plaintiff’s identity; not UH.”
It is unclear how many patients remain in litigation. Attorneys familiar with the case say the number is in the “hundreds” and that they Jane Doe tag is protecting the privacy of legitimate patients.
Bhadnager cited the privacy issue in his affidavit, calling it a “betrayal” to force them into the public. He cited the UH attorneys’ efforts to obtain the names of patients as a reason for his need to obtain new legal representation.
Bhadnager wrote in an affidavit filed with the court that protecting patient privacy is the “humane and decent thing to do given the calamitous, tragic failure at the fertility lab…because fertility and sexuality matters are among the utmost intimate and private matters for which patients can be treated.”
You can read UH's statement to 3News below:
More coverage:
Editor's Note: The below video aired on March 3, 2019