The Case

• Case Name: Richard Loftus, MD v. Eisenhower Medical Center
• Court and Case Number: Riverside County Superior Court / CVPS2106540
• Date of Verdict or Judgment: Monday, October 13, 2025
• Date of Arbitration Award: Monday, October 13, 2025
• Date Action was Filed: Thursday, December 23, 2021
• Type of Case: Employment
• Judge or Arbitrator(s): Hon. Michael A. Latin (Ret.)
• Plaintiffs:
  Dr. Richard Loftus, 56
• Defendants:
  Eisenhower Medical Center
• Type of Result: Arbitration Award

The Result

• Gross Verdict or Award: $5,600,000
• Net Verdict or Award: $8,552,049.21 including $2,952,049.21 in attorney’s fees, costs, and prejudgment interest.
• Award as to each Defendant: Against Eisenhower: $1 million emotional distress; $600K loss of earnings, $4 million punitive.
• On November 4, 2025, the judge awarded (1) attorney’s fees incurred in the amount of $2,460,281.25; (2) costs in the amount of $62,427.03; and (3) prejudgment interest in the amount of $429,340.93 ($2,952,049.21 total).
• Economic Damages:$600,000
• Non-Economic Damages: $1,000,000
• Punitive Damages: $4,000,000
• Trial or Arbitration Time: 7 days
• Post Trial Motions & Post-Verdict Settlements: None.

The Attorneys

• Attorney for the Plaintiff:

  Rager & Yoon - Employment Lawyers by Jeffrey A. Rager, El Segundo.

  Savarese Law Firm by Melanie R. Savarese, Pasadena.

• Attorney for the Defendant:

  Jones Day by Aaron Agenbroad, San Francisco.

The Experts

• Plaintiff’s Medical Expert(s):

  Jennie McNulty, economics.

Facts and Background

• Facts and Background: Plaintiff Dr. Loftus was a 10-year physician with Eisenhower Medical Center and the assistant program director for the Internal Medicine Residency. The alleged incidents occurred during the Covid pandemic. Plaintiff had no reported discipline instances in his file and was well regarded as a clinical physician and teacher. 
• Plaintiff's Contentions: As the Covid pandemic engulfed the Coachella Valley in March 2020, Dr. Loftus was a strong advocate for Covid preventative measures such as masking and testing. However, his advocacy was met with fierce resistance and mocking by EMC administration. Additionally, the Internal Medicine Residency was run by a program director, Dr. Mehrdad Abbasi, who plaintiff claimed had a pattern of being abusive to females. On behalf of the female physicians, Dr. Loftus reported Dr. Abbasi to Eisenhower's chief operating officer, Martin Massiello, and to the chief medical officer, Dr. Alan Williamson, as well as Human Resources. In response, on April 24, 2024, Dr. Abbasi filed a formal complaint against Dr. Loftus because he "publicly accused me of sexism" and he resisted the anti-mask policy of Eisenhower.  The Agreement included: 1) agree that he engaged in inappropriate behavior; 2) allow EMC to determine if he breached the Agreement which would jeopardize his privileges; 3) undergo a full forensic evaluation by a psychiatrist chosen by EMC; 4) acquiesce to disclosure of his medical information to anyone the Medical Executive Committee saw fit; 5) undergo psychiatric care; 6) release his legal claims; 7) agree to arbitration of any disputes; and 8) agree that the Agreement was in effect as long as he remained at EMC. Plaintiff contended that the medical center engaged in retaliation, which was in violation of Labor Code section 1102.5, FEHA, and Health and Safety Code section 1278.5.
•  
• Under these circumstances, Dr. Loftus felt he could not reasonably sign the Agreement as it would prevent him from getting credentialed at other hospitals and risk a report to the Medical Board. Dr. Loftus resigned and filed a lawsuit alleging that he was retaliated against for raising safety and gender concerns.
• Dr. Williamson then raised concerns about Dr. Loftus' mental fitness to the Medical Executive Committee, which then presented Dr. Loftus with a Behavior Agreement.
• Defendant's Contentions: Defendants denied that they retaliated against Dr. Loftus and contended that Dr. Loftus’ behavior was erratic and unprofessional.

Demands and Offers

• Plaintiff §998 Demand: $1,000,000
• Defendant §998 Offer: $150,000