Advertisement
YOU ARE HERE: LAT HomeCollectionsNews

'Octomom' Nadya Suleman's doctor wants license restored

Michael Kamrava, a fertility expert, contends that the state medical board revoked his license because of 'popular vilification' in the media over the Suleman case.

November 27, 2011|By Rong-Gong Lin II, Los Angeles Times
  • Dr. Michael Kamrava appears at a Medical Board of California hearing in May.
Dr. Michael Kamrava appears at a Medical Board of California hearing in… (Nick Ut / Associated Press )

Michael Kamrava, the Beverly Hills fertility expert who treated octuplets mom Nadya Suleman, wants his medical license back from the state of California, according to recently filed court records.

An attorney for Kamrava contended that the Medical Board of California's ultimate decision to revoke Kamrava's medical license, effective July 1, was too harsh and a reaction to the "popular vilification" of Kamrava in the media.

"The revocation of Dr. Kamrava's license is hardly necessary to protect the public. In order for it to have been designed to protect the public, there must be an assumption that he would do this again," the court filing said.

Kamrava's lawyer, Kathy J. McCormick, also wrote that Kamrava, who transferred 12 embryos in Suleman in July 2008, "performed a perfectly legal procedure but the public (or at least the media) thought the procedure was repugnant."

McCormick said that an appropriate punishment would be to have another doctor monitor Kamrava in the future, writing that "it is highly unlikely he would ever do this again."

In a response, California Deputy Atty. Gen. Judith T. Alvarado wrote that there was "clear and convincing evidence" that Kamrava was "grossly negligent when he transferred an excessive number of embryos" into Suleman in 2008. Alvarado also faulted Kamrava for failing to follow up on abnormal test results for a different patient, who was 42. Months later, a different doctor discovered that the woman had ovarian cancer, board documents state.

"The Board was not assured that oversight of [Kamrava's] practice through probation was sufficient to ensure public protection. The Board, therefore, concluded that revocation of [Kamrava's] certificate was necessary to protect the public," Alvarado wrote.

A different lawyer for Kamrava in May acknowledged the failure to follow up on the abnormal biopsy of the 42-year-old patient. "He said, 'Look…it was the only time in my career I had forgotten.' It was just from the publicity of [Nadya Suleman]…that he forgot to tell her," Henry Fenton said at a board hearing in May.

The next court hearing on the motion is set for Dec. 15 in L.A. County Superior Court.

ron.lin@latimes.com

Advertisement
Los Angeles Times Articles
|
|
|