How to Report Psychiatrist Sexual Misconduct in PA: Three Tracks

Last verified July 31, 2026. This article is legal information, not legal advice. Reporting choices, filing deadlines, and litigation strategy can change with facts that are not visible from public materials, so a patient or family member should consult a Pennsylvania-licensed attorney for case-specific guidance.

The July 30, 2026 revocation of Amy Mazza MacIntyre’s Pennsylvania medical license is a useful starting point because it shows what many patients are not told clearly enough: a private civil settlement does not end the public licensing question. MacIntyre, a Bryn Mawr child and adolescent psychiatrist practicing on Lancaster Avenue, lost her license after the State Board of Medicine found a years-long sexual relationship with a patient who had entered treatment at 17 as a cancer survivor. The relationship continued while she prescribed powerful psychiatric drugs. The former patient, now 39, had previously resolved a civil case under a settlement that included a nondisclosure agreement, but he spoke with authorities anyway, saying he acted “for the good of the public interest.” The board revoked her license under the Medical Practice Act, and she is scheduled to argue before a judge for reinstatement.[1]

That result does not mean every complaint produces revocation. It does mean Pennsylvania’s administrative process can keep moving on its own track, with its own proof standard, even when a civil case has already been settled. For a patient trying to decide how to report psychiatrist sexual misconduct in Pennsylvania, that distinction matters more than any broad assurance that “there are options.” There are three main avenues, and they do different work.

The Three Tracks At A Glance

A patient can start with one track and later use another, but the tracks should not be collapsed into one instruction to “report.” A board investigator is not a prosecutor. A prosecutor is not the patient’s civil lawyer. A civil settlement does not automatically discipline a physician. Each forum asks a different question and can require the patient to repeat painful facts in a different format.

Track One: File A Medical Board Complaint

The board track is the administrative licensing route. In Pennsylvania, complaints against licensed professionals can be filed through the Pennsylvania Licensing System, commonly called PALS, by phone at 1-800-822-2113, or by mail to the Bureau of Professional and Occupational Affairs.[2] For a psychiatrist, the licensing body will generally be the State Board of Medicine or, for an osteopathic physician, the State Board of Osteopathic Medicine.

The practical reason to use this track is that the board can act on the license. A civil case may compensate one patient. A criminal case may punish a defendant if prosecutors can prove a charge beyond a reasonable doubt. A board case asks whether the professional should keep practicing under Pennsylvania’s licensing laws.

How The Board Process Usually Moves

After a complaint is filed, the Bureau of Enforcement and Investigation investigates. If probable cause is found, the professional can receive an Order to Show Cause. A formal hearing may follow, and sanctions can reach license revocation. The reported burden in these disciplinary proceedings is a preponderance of the evidence, meaning the board does not need a criminal conviction before it can discipline a licensee.[3]

• File online through PALS if the patient or advocate can use the state portal.
• Call 1-800-822-2113 if the filing route is unclear or if a paper complaint is needed.
• Keep a copy of the complaint, confirmation numbers, letters, emails, and any investigator contact information.
• Preserve treatment dates, prescription records, messages, billing records, settlement documents, and names of possible witnesses.

MacIntyre’s case matters here because the patient had already entered a civil settlement with a nondisclosure agreement. The public licensing question still survived. An NDA may create private contractual risk that deserves legal review, but it does not necessarily prevent a licensing agency from receiving information or deciding whether a physician remains fit to practice. That is the procedural point worth carrying from the case, not a promise that every licensing complaint will end the same way.

The evidence a patient submits should be organized for an investigator who did not live through the treatment relationship. Dates matter. So do the beginning and end of treatment, the timing of sexual contact, prescriptions, hospital affiliations, office locations, emails, texts, portal messages, and any prior internal complaint to a practice or hospital. The board may investigate beyond what the patient provides, but a clear chronology keeps the burden from drifting back into a vague request that the patient “tell the whole story” again without structure.

Track Two: Make A Criminal Report

A criminal report goes to law enforcement, usually local police where the conduct occurred or, in appropriate matters, the Pennsylvania Attorney General’s office. Pennsylvania does not appear to have an enacted criminal statute written specifically for psychotherapist sexual exploitation; a 1993 proposal, HB 888, was not enacted. Criminal charges instead may fall under general Pennsylvania sex-crime statutes, including indecent assault, sexual assault, or institutional sexual assault, depending on the facts.[4]

The criminal track has the highest proof burden. Prosecutors must prove a charged offense beyond a reasonable doubt. That difference explains why a board case may be possible even if criminal charges are not filed, and why a patient should not read a prosecutor’s decision as a complete answer to every other route.

A patient making a criminal report should expect questions about consent, timing, age, treatment status, communications, medications, and whether there were threats, coercion, impairment, or institutional control. In psychiatric-treatment cases, those questions can feel badly matched to the reality of professional authority, dependency, medication management, and trust. Still, those are the facts law enforcement may need to evaluate a general sex-crime statute rather than a therapist-specific offense.

Track Three: Consider A Civil Lawsuit

The civil track is the patient’s damages route. It can seek compensation from the psychiatrist and, in some cases, from a hospital, practice, clinic, or other entity under theories such as negligent hiring, supervision, or retention. Pennsylvania materials summarized for abuse survivors identify a general two-year deadline from discovery of the abuse for adult victims. For child sexual abuse victims, Act 87 of 2019 extended the filing deadline to the victim’s 55th birthday.[5]

Deadline analysis is one of the places where a patient should not rely on a general article. Discovery, age at the time of abuse, later realization of injury, tolling arguments, prior settlements, institutional defendants, and the date a claim accrued can all affect the analysis. If the civil deadline has passed, that may narrow damages options, but it does not automatically answer whether a board complaint or criminal report can still be made.

Institutional liability requires its own proof. A hospital or practice is not automatically liable because a physician committed misconduct. The civil question is usually what the institution knew or should have known, whether it failed in hiring, supervision, retention, credentialing, or response, and whether that failure caused harm. Those records may not be in the patient’s possession before litigation, which is one reason early legal review can matter.

Civil settlements also require care. A settlement can resolve money claims between private parties, and it may include confidentiality language. But MacIntyre’s revocation shows why a settlement should not be mistaken for a licensing disposition. Before signing, breaching, or relying on an NDA, a patient should have a Pennsylvania lawyer review the exact language and the reporting context.

Hospitals And Facilities May Have Their Own Reporting Duty

Pennsylvania also has a facility-reporting rule that is separate from a patient’s own choices. Under 35 P.S. §448.806a, Pennsylvania health care facilities and hospitals must report physician misconduct to the State Board of Medicine or State Board of Osteopathic Examiners within 60 days of the occurrence.[6]

That duty should not be treated as a fourth victim-controlled track. It is a responsibility placed on the facility. A patient who reported internally to a hospital, clinic, or practice should keep proof of that report, the date, the person who received it, and any written response. If the institution failed to act, those facts may matter in both a board investigation and a civil negligent-supervision or retention claim.

What To Preserve Before Choosing Where To Begin

The first filing does not need to be perfect, but records can disappear. Before calling police, filing with PALS, or meeting a civil lawyer, the patient or advocate should gather materials in a way that does not alter them. Screenshots are useful, but original messages, portal records, prescription histories, call logs, billing records, and settlement papers can be more important.

• Build a chronology with approximate dates if exact dates are not available.
• Separate treatment events from sexual contact, prescribing decisions, gifts, threats, or confidentiality demands.
• List every institution connected to the psychiatrist, including hospitals, practices, clinics, and training programs.
• Save copies of complaints made to office managers, hospital compliance departments, licensing staff, police, or insurers.
• Ask a lawyer before deleting, editing, forwarding, or publicly posting sensitive records.

A survivor may also need to decide how many times they can bear to recount the facts. The legal system often describes the tracks as if they are cleanly separate files. For the patient, they can feel like repeated interviews with different gatekeepers. That practical burden is a reason to plan the order of reports, not a reason to assume only one forum can act.

Why Pennsylvania’s Law Still Leaves Gaps

The broader policy record is thinner than patients might expect. A 2020 article in the Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law found that only five states had explicit statutes addressing mandatory reporting of psychotherapist sexual exploitation learned during treatment, and Pennsylvania was not among them. The same study reported a gap between attitude and conduct: 56% of surveyed psychiatrists favored mandatory reporting, but only 8% reported exploitation they knew about.[7]

National medical-board policy is stricter in tone than many patients experience in practice. A Federation of State Medical Boards workgroup recommended zero tolerance and revocation for serious sexual misconduct in 2020.[8] That recommendation helps explain why license revocation is a recognized disciplinary response, but it is not the same as Pennsylvania outcome data. Public disciplinary databases do not always make it easy to see how often sexual-misconduct complaints lead to particular sanctions.

Interstate discipline is another point that should be checked before anyone relies on it. The available source material indicated that Pennsylvania had not enacted the Interstate Medical Licensure Compact as of 2022, but compact status can change and should be verified against current state and compact records before a reporting or filing strategy depends on it.[8]

The Decision Point

For a Pennsylvania patient reporting psychiatrist sexual misconduct, the cleanest starting question is not “Do I report?” but “Which forum needs what from me, and what can that forum actually do?” The medical board can protect the public through licensing discipline. Police and prosecutors can pursue criminal charges under general sex-crime laws if the evidence supports them. A civil lawsuit can seek damages and test whether institutions failed in hiring, supervision, or retention.

MacIntyre’s revocation is important because it makes the independence of those tracks visible. It does not erase the difficulty of reporting, the higher criminal burden, the risk of expired civil deadlines, or the need to review any NDA before acting. It does show that Pennsylvania’s licensing process can remain a live public-accountability route after a private settlement. Before choosing where to begin, preserve dates and records, identify every institution involved, and get case-specific advice from a Pennsylvania-licensed attorney.

References

1. “Amy Mazza MacIntyre license revocation report,” Philadelphia Inquirer, July 30, 2026, Philadelphia Inquirer
2. “File a Complaint,” PA.gov, pa.gov
3. “Pennsylvania Board Disciplinary Proceedings,” Fienman Defense, Fienman Defense
4. “Medical Professionals Accused of Sex Crimes in Pennsylvania,” Worgul, Sarna & Ness, Worgul, Sarna & Ness
5. “Survivors of Abuse PA Guide,” Ashley DiLiberto, Esq., Survivors of Abuse PA, Survivors of Abuse PA
6. “Pennsylvania Reporting Statute Summary,” Hortyspringer, Hortyspringer
7. “Mandatory Reporting of Psychotherapist Sexual Exploitation,” Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 2020, JAAPL
8. “FSMB Workgroup Recommendations on Physician Sexual Misconduct,” PMC, 2020, PMC