In March 2026, Columbia University and NewYork-Presbyterian released an outside investigation into how former gynecologist Robert Hadden was able to abuse patients for years. The report was written by lawyers at the firm Sidley Austin, who were hired by the two institutions. It points to failures in chaperoning, in reporting, and in how earlier complaints were handled.
Background on the Hadden case
Robert Hadden practiced obstetrics and gynecology at Columbia University Irving Medical Center and NewYork-Presbyterian from about 1987 to 2012. In 2016, he pleaded guilty in New York state court to one count of forcible touching and one count of a criminal sexual act. He gave up his medical license and did not serve prison time.
Federal prosecutors later charged him. In January 2023, a federal jury in Manhattan convicted him of inducing four victims to travel across state lines to engage in illegal sexual activity. In July 2023, U.S. District Judge Richard M. Berman sentenced him to 20 years in prison, according to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York.
Columbia has said it contacted nearly 6,500 former Hadden patients in late 2023 and set up a fund for survivors. Its public update page says it has reached voluntary settlements with more than 1,000 former Hadden patients. A settlement is not an admission, and those settlements reflect the facts of those cases. They do not show what any other claim may be worth.
How the investigation was done
The report is titled “Report of Investigation into the Circumstances That Allowed Robert Hadden to Abuse Patients.” It runs 156 pages. The investigators say they heard from more than 120 witnesses, about half of them survivors, and interviewed more than 60 current and former employees. They say they reviewed more than 120,000 documents. Hadden declined to be interviewed.
It is important to be clear about what this document is. It is an investigation commissioned by the institutions themselves. It is not a court ruling, and it does not decide any legal claim.
Three main findings
The report groups its conclusions into three areas.
- Chaperones were not used effectively. A 2007 policy called for chaperones, but the report says the program was understaffed, the policy was not enforced, chaperones were not trained, and staff feared retaliation if they spoke up.
- Reporting was hard. The report says patients faced obstacles to reporting, and that Columbia had no policy for handling patient complaints about physician misconduct at its outpatient offices.
- Reports that did come in were not acted on well. According to the report, almost none of the earlier complaints were placed in Hadden’s personnel or credentialing files. After his 2012 arrest, leaders believed he had a clean record and allowed him to return to work days later.
These are the investigators’ conclusions. The institutions have said they are making changes, and the report includes recommendations.
Why these findings matter beyond one hospital
The themes in the report are not unique. The Federation of State Medical Boards, in its 2020 report on physician sexual misconduct, also discussed chaperones, the duty to report, and the need for boards and hospitals to act on complaints. Federal hospital rules require hospitals to review the qualifications of the doctors they let practice.
For patients, the Hadden report shows how a paper policy is not the same as a working safeguard. A chaperone rule that is not staffed or enforced may offer little protection. A complaint that never reaches a doctor’s file cannot shape later decisions about that doctor.
Our page on doctor sexual abuse explains how chaperones, credentialing and state medical boards fit together. Our sexual assault and abuse overview covers the wider area of law.
What this means for survivors
If you were harmed by a doctor or other medical professional, you are not alone, and what happened was not your fault. Time limits for civil claims vary by state and by the kind of claim, and some states have changed their rules for sexual abuse cases. A lawyer can review the specifics of your situation, including which rules may apply.
This article is general information about how these cases work. It is not legal advice, it does not create an attorney-client relationship, and no two claims are alike. If something here sounds like your situation, the useful next step is a conversation about the facts.
