Order of Temporary Suspension

TRENTON – Attorney General Matthew J. Platkin and the Division of Consumer Affairs announced today that the State Board of Medical Examiners (“Board”) temporarily suspended the license of a Mercer County obstetrician and gynecologist after finding credible evidence he baselessly sexually exploited two patients under the cloak of providing routine medical care. 

Physician Bruce Pierce, who practiced at the Delaware Valley OBGYN & Princeton Midwifery in Lawrenceville, is accused of engaging in professional misconduct, gross negligence and incompetence, and other violations of Board statutes and regulations by inappropriately touching two longtime female patients during exams last year.

In a hearing before the Board on November 13, 2024, attorneys with the New Jersey Division of Law’s Professional Boards Prosecution (“PBP”) Section petitioned for the immediate temporary suspension of Pierce’s license, arguing that allowing him to continue practicing pending the resolution of the allegations against him would present a clear and imminent danger to the health, safety, and welfare of the public.

At the conclusion of the hearing, which included testimony from both patients, the Board voted unanimously to temporarily suspend Pierce’s license pending the outcome of a hearing in the New Jersey Office of Administrative Law (“OAL”) and further action by the Board.  Last week, the Board filed an Order of Temporary Suspension (“Order”) formalizing its decision.

“Patients who submit to sensitive medical exams place their trust in the expertise and professionalism of their practitioner.  When physicians abuse that trust for their own sexual gratification, the consequences can be devastating,” said Attorney General Platkin.  “The Board action announced today is the result of my office’s continued commitment to rooting out and halting sexual misconduct in healthcare settings.” 

“No patient should ever have to fear being sexually exploited on a physician’s exam table,” said Cari Fais, Director of the Division of Consumer Affairs.  “The alleged conduct of this doctor violates the most basic tenets of the medical profession.  I thank the Board for fulfilling its duty to protect the public by temporarily removing him from practice while these allegations are pending against him.” 

In a Verified Complaint filed on October 9, 2024, Attorney General Platkin, through the PBP Section, alleged that Pierce’s conduct constitutes repeated acts of negligence, malpractice, incompetence, and other unlawful conduct that endangered his patients.  

Patient 1

The first incident, which allegedly took place in January 2023, involved a woman identified in publicly filed documents as “Patient 1,” who testified that Pierce had been her OB/GYN since approximately the mid-1990s.

According to allegations contained in the Verified Complaint, after conducting a normal breast, pelvic, and rectal exam on the patient in the presence of a female chaperone, Pierce dismissed the chaperone and asked Patient 1 if he could repeat the exam.  When she asked him why that was necessary, he allegedly told her “sometimes things change as we get older” and that he wanted to “double check things to be sure.” During the second exam, Pierce allegedly inappropriately touched Patient 1.

During the Board hearing, Patient 1 testified that she left Pierce’s office feeling violated, as she knew that something about the second examination was not right.  She further testified that after speaking with a work supervisor and some family members, she decided to report the incident to the Lawrence Township Police and file a complaint with the Board.  In her complaint, Patient 1 explained how the alleged misconduct by her trusted physician has negatively impacted her life and emotional health.

Patient 2

The second incident, which allegedly took place in December 2023, involved a woman identified in filed documents as “Patient 2.”

According to the allegations contained in the Verified Complaint, Patient 2 sought an appointment with Pierce after experiencing pelvic pain.  During the visit, Patient 2 underwent an ultrasound conducted by a lab technician and was then taken into an examination room.  Pierce allegedly came into the room and told Patient 2 that her ultrasound looked fine and asked her if she wanted a female chaperone during his examination of her, an offer she declined.  During the examination, Pierce allegedly inappropriately touched Patient 2.  Feeling increasingly uncomfortable with the manner in which Pierce was touching her, Patient 2 asked Pierce to stop and he complied.

In her testimony before the Board, Patient 2 said she declined to have a chaperone present because she trusted Pierce, who had been her OB/GYN for more than 20 years and had delivered her child.  She also told the Board that in past visits with Pierce, she had never had to request that a chaperone be present during examinations because one had always been present.

Approximately two hours after Patient 2 left Pierce’s office, he allegedly called her from his personal cell phone to ask if she was “okay.”  Patient 2, who was still in shock and upset from the day’s events, ended the call quickly by indicating that she was “okay.”

Two days later, Patient 2 allegedly sent Pierce a text message telling him that initially after the appointment, she was “in a state of shock,” but that upon reflection, her feelings of shock had been replaced with those of “fury and disgust.”  She explained that she realized his behavior was “unprofessional and unacceptable” and accused Pierce of having “abused her good faith.”  Patient 2 indicated that her “only mistake” was not having requested a chaperone before the exam, but, because she trusted him as her long-time physician, she did not think one was necessary.  Patient 2 informed Pierce she would not be using his practice ever again and expressed concern about him engaging in similar misconduct with other patients.

On the same day, Pierce allegedly replied to Patient 2’s text message by stating: “Okay, I’m so sorry, I upset you.  It will never happen again I do value our 20 plus year doctor patient relationship.  Thank you for not making it public.  My career will be over, and I don’t know what I would do.  I hope you can forgive me. This will never happen again. I understand that you are leaving the practice, but I hope you will reconsider and give me one more chance.”

Patient 2 subsequently reported the alleged incident to the Board, in part to prevent Pierce from abusing other unsuspecting patients.  In her complaint, Patient 2 said the incident has caused her significant distress and resulted in a distrust of health care professionals.

In an Order of Temporary Suspension filed on November 25, 2024, the Board noted that it had found Patient 1 and Patient 2 to be “credible witnesses” whose testimony and statements “detail incidents where [Pierce] sexually abused them, thereby shattering the trust placed upon him as a doctor and abusing that trust to enable him to act instead as a sexual predator.”

“We found each patient’s testimony to be credible, chilling, and compelling,” the Board wrote in its Order.  The Board also found that the text messages exchanged between Pierce and Patient 2 fully corroborated the testimony offered and demonstrated consciousness of guilt by Pierce.  

In voting to grant the Attorney General’s application for an immediate temporary suspension of Pierce’s license, the Board rejected arguments from Pierce’s defense attorneys that the Attorney General had not met the statutory burden of palpably demonstrating that Pierce’s continued practice constitutes a clear and imminent danger to the public health, safety, and welfare; that there would not have been sufficient time for Pierce to have engaged in the conduct he is alleged to have engaged in with either patient; and that the application for temporary suspension should be rejected because the most recent of the two incidents occurred nearly a year ago.

The Board also rejected the defense’s argument that it should not take the step of suspending Pierce’s license, as there are other means which would protect the public. 

“[Pierce] engaged in conduct, which is entirely antithetical to medical practice, and runs wholly afoul of all physician’s obligations to do no harm to their patients.  That conduct unquestionably presents a continuing and immediate danger to any and all of [Pierce’s] patients.  There are no measures short of a full, immediate temporary suspension of license that we could craft which would adequately protect [Pierce’s] patients from such egregious conduct,” the Board wrote in its Order.

Investigators with the Enforcement Bureau, within the Division of Consumer Affairs, conducted the investigation into this matter.

The State was represented in this matter by Deputy Attorney General Michelle Mikelberg, under the supervision of Section Chief Doreen A. Hafner and Assistant Section Chief David M. Puteska, of the Professional Boards Prosecution Section, within the Affirmative Civil Enforcement Practice Group of the Division of Law.  Pierce was represented at the hearing by Daniel G. Giaquinto, Esq. and Alan R. Blankstein, Esq. from Frier & Levitt, LLC.

Patients who believe that they have been treated by a licensed health care professional in an inappropriate manner can file an online complaint with the State Division of Consumer Affairs by visiting its website or by calling 1-800-242-5846 (toll free within New Jersey) or 973-504-6200.

###

The mission of the Division of Consumer Affairs, within the Department of Law and Public Safety, is to protect the public from fraud, deceit, misrepresentation, and professional misconduct in the sale of goods and services in New Jersey through education, advocacy, regulation, and enforcement.  The Division pursues its mission through its 51 professional and occupational boards that oversee 720,000 licensees in the state, its Regulated Business section that oversees 60,000 NJ registered businesses, as well as through its Office of Consumer Protection, Bureau of Securities, Charities Registration section, Office of Weights and Measures, and Legalized Games of Chance section.