A prominent urological pathologist from The Johns Hopkins Hospital, Dr. Jonathan Epstein, has been placed on administrative leave since May 2023 after his alleged misdiagnosis led to a patient's bladder being removed. As per a report by The Washington Post, he allegedly pressured fellow doctors at the Baltimore-based hospital to give several diagnoses that matched that of his wife.
The newspaper cited a hospital accreditation report by the nonprofit Joint Commission that interviewed an unspecified number of physicians and residents.
They accused the 66-year-old, who also serves as the hospital's director of surgical pathology, of "bullying" and "intimidation." It stated that they "'feared retaliation or career repercussions if they spoke up."
They alleged that he forced them to give a second opinion that mirrored that of his wife Dr. Hillary Epstein who works at Chesapeake Urology Associates in Beltsville, Maryland.
In one extreme case, the wrong diagnosis led to a patient undergoing a bladder removal in April 2023, only to have a post-op analysis show a different diagnosis.
In light of the allegation, Johns Hopkins pathologist Dr. Jonathan Epstein denies claims
The Joint Commission ordered the Johns Hopkins Hospital to address concerns of bullying and improper care of patients raised by staff members of the pathology department following its report released in August 2023. However, it did not refer to claims of Jonathan Epstein's role in second opinions on his wife's diagnoses.
In light of the news, Epstein wrote a letter to the New York Post stating he was "profoundly distressed" at the allegations.
"They are the antithesis of everything I stand for and have tried to exhibit in my professional life over these 35 years at Johns Hopkins," he wrote.
While he declined to discuss the bladder removal case citing patient privacy, he added that "medical cases" have "many complicating factors."
Referring to claims of bullying staff into accepting diagnoses made by his wife, he wrote that as an expert in prostate and bladder pathology, he reviewed cases. He said that his staff, who did not have specialty training in the specialization, disagreed with the staff of Chesapeake pathologists who were experts in the field.
He reiterated that his diagnoses were "based solely on objective evaluation of the case," and added that he has always held his "professional responsibilities" and treated everyone with "respect, civility, and fairness." As a supervisor, he wrote:
"Resolve(d) differences and counsel colleagues and subordinates in a constructive and private manner."
The Johns Hopkins head of the pathology department added that his colleagues would bring him difficult cases and he would only amend cases if they felt the diagnosis was not accurate.
The Johns Hopkins Hospital's spokesperson Liz Vandendriessche, defended its pathology department, stating it is nationally renowned and offers the best services to its patients. She stated that they are working with The Joint Commission to address the concerns raised in the report.
Vandendriessche added that several citations in the report were removed after the hospital provided information to the nonprofit.
Dr. Hillary Epstien declined to comment on the controversy.