In January of 2023, Doe presented to a Mass General healthcare center for a scheduled medical appointment with Dr. Lien. The appointment was for a routine physical for which Doe was then overdue. After checking in for his appointment, Doe was brought to an examination room by Knighton, a medical assistant, and instructed to undress and put on a gown. Knighton then proceeded to “check Doe’s testicles” before leaving the examination room.
A short time later, Dr. Lien entered the examination room. Dr. Lien then performed an examination of Doe, and concluded the physical by placing an order for lab work and directing Doe to proceed down the hall for blood testing. Doe did as instructed. While Doe was waiting to have his blood drawn, Knighton approached him and led him back into the examination room in order to speak privately. Once there, Knighton inquired if Dr. Lien had conducted a rectal
examination to check Doe’s prostate and to look for possible polyps. When Doe replied that Dr. Lien had not done so, Knighton left the room – purportedly to “confer” with the doctor.
When Knighton returned, he announced that Dr. Lien had requested him to perform a rectal exam on Doe. Knighton then instructed Doe to remove his clothes again, and to position himself on all fours on room’s the examination table. Doe was “confused and surprised” by Knighton’s instructions; but, inasmuch as he “always trusted his Mass General medical professionals,” Doe complied. Knighton thereupon inserted his fingers into Doe’s rectum, and proceeded to move his fingers around the inside of the cavity. Knighton then assured Doe that he would report his findings to Dr. Lien, and concluded the examination.
On January 18, 2023, after learning of Knighton’s arrest on charges of sexual assault and battery, Doe contacted police authorities to report the details of his own encounter with Knighton. On March 3, 2025, Knighton was convicted in Massachusetts Superior Court of multiple counts of indecent assault and battery.
Doe contended that his claims were for sexual assault rather than medical negligence, that no expert testimony is required to establish a standard of care for such conduct, and that the claims thus fall outside the purview of those for which a malpractice tribunal is required.
The Superior Court stated in its July 10, 2025 Memorandum of Decision: “the Court concludes that Plaintiff’s claims against the MGH Defendants in this case do rest upon allegations of medical negligence and professional malpractice. As such, the claims are properly subject to tribunal review pursuant to G.L. c. 231, § 60B. Doe’s Complaint itself repeatedly invokes the obligations that the Defendants owed to provide him with the highest level of patient care … the express terms of Plaintiff’s own pleading leave no room to doubt that the duties Doe claims to have been owed and breached by the MGH Defendants are ones that derive entirely from Doe’s status as a patient receiving medical care, and that the substance of his claims against these Defendants are thus in the nature of professional negligence or malpractice. It is well settled that the reach of the § 60B malpractice tribunal extends to all forms of negligence, mistake and error in connection with the rendering of medical care and treatment, regardless of the particular legal theory or label attached to the tortious conduct alleged.”
Furthermore, “Plaintiff’s causes of action in this case are in the nature of alleged medical negligence (and thus appropriate for review by a malpractice tribunal) is especially clear when one recalls that the direct-liability claims asserted against the MGH Defendants are not for sexual assault. Vicarious liability for the misdeeds of Knighton aside, these Defendants are charged with primary liability for their own negligence in failing to train, manage and supervise Knighton in his delivery of on-site medical care to Doe. Our appellate courts have made clear that allegations of this nature, viz., a failure by a physician provider or health care organization to give adequate supervision to a physician’s assistant, constitute charges of medical malpractice appropriate for tribunal review.”
John Doe II v. Knighton, No. 2584CV00687-C.
If you or a loved one may have been harmed by medical malpractice in Massachusetts or in another U.S. state, you should promptly find a Massachusetts medical malpractice attorney, or a medical malpractice attorney in your state, who may investigate your medical malpractice claim for you and represent you or your loved one in a medical malpractice case, if appropriate.
Click here to visit our website or call us toll-free in the United States at 800-295-3959 to find medical malpractice lawyers in your U.S. state who may assist you.
Turn to us when you don’t know where to turn.
