An Army gynecologist at Fort Hood, identified in a civilian lawsuit as Maj. Blaine McGraw, is accused of secretly recording intimate exams during patient visits and of performing unnecessary, invasive procedures, a complaint filed Monday in Bell County District Court alleges. The plaintiff—filing under the pseudonym Jane Doe—says the incidents occurred at Carl R. Darnall Army Medical Center and that investigators began interviewing her on Oct. 17 after an Oct. 14 exam in which a phone was allegedly used to record without consent. Fort Hood officials suspended McGraw on Oct. 17 and the Army Criminal Investigation Division (CID) opened a criminal probe; the lawsuit further claims dozens of additional victims may exist and that multiple internal investigations are underway.
Key Takeaways
- The 13-page complaint alleges Maj. Blaine McGraw secretly recorded patients during pelvic and breast exams at Carl R. Darnall Army Medical Center (Fort Hood), with a specific incident dated Oct. 14, 2025.
- McGraw was suspended by Fort Hood on Oct. 17, 2025, and the Army Criminal Investigation Division initiated an investigation the same day.
- The plaintiff is identified as Jane Doe in the filing; her spouse is an active-duty service member with more than 20 years of service, illustrating dependence on military medical facilities.
- Attorney Andrew Cobos says he represents the named plaintiff and is aware of an additional 45 alleged victims beyond the plaintiff in this complaint.
- The lawsuit alleges recordings and still images were retained on multiple devices and that investigators showed Jane Doe photos from the alleged Oct. 14 filming during an Oct. 17 interview.
- The complaint asserts prior warnings during McGraw’s 2019 assignment at Tripler Army Medical Center in Hawaii were dismissed by leadership, an allegation currently framed as part of the civil suit.
Background
Military medical facilities serve active-duty members, dependents and retirees; spouses and family members routinely receive care at base hospitals under TRICARE or direct facility access. Because many dependents seek care on base, allegations of provider misconduct at an installation can affect a broad population of patients and undermine confidence in military healthcare systems. Reporting channels for complaints include local medical leadership, commander channels and criminal investigators such as Army CID, but plaintiffs and advocates have in recent years criticized transparency and timeliness in some cases.
Maj. McGraw reportedly served at Tripler Army Medical Center in Hawaii beginning in 2019 before his assignment at Fort Hood. The new lawsuit alleges leadership at prior and current assignments were made aware of concerns but did not act decisively, a claim the Army must investigate separately from criminal probes. Civil suits like this one often seek monetary damages and institutional reforms while parallel criminal and administrative investigations determine criminal culpability and potential licensing or credentialing consequences.
Main Event
The complaint describes an Oct. 14, 2025 appointment in which Jane Doe sought care for pelvic pain and uterine concerns. According to the filing, McGraw allegedly sent nurses out or kept them from entering the room on multiple visits and then performed exams the plaintiff says were unrelated to her stated medical issues. The suit contends that during the Oct. 14 visit McGraw faked a phone call, slipped a phone into his breast pocket with the camera facing outward, and continued the pelvic exam while the device recorded.
Jane Doe’s attorneys say McGraw also performed an invasive breast exam she did not request and did so despite her protests. The complaint alleges unsolicited after-hours calls from McGraw to the plaintiff and describes investigators showing her still images taken from the alleged Oct. 14 recording. Investigators reportedly told her that video and images from her final appointment were preserved on multiple devices.
Fort Hood officials told reporters McGraw was suspended on Oct. 17 and that additional internal administrative steps were taken to protect patients; the base also said official notification letters were sent to patients treated by McGraw. The Army CID has an open criminal investigation, and base leadership said several additional inquiries are examining systems, clinical processes and policies surrounding the allegations.
Analysis & Implications
If the allegations are substantiated, the case raises serious questions about oversight, patient consent practices and the culture of reporting within military medical facilities. Secret recordings during medical exams, if proven, constitute violations of patients’ privacy and could support criminal charges such as illegal recording and sexual exploitation, in addition to civil claims for damages. The Army’s response—whether timely, transparent and survivor-centered—will affect public trust in service medical systems and could spur policy or procedural changes across facilities.
The lawsuit’s claims that prior complaints were ignored, if corroborated, would indicate systemic failures in escalating personnel or safety concerns. Military healthcare depends on both medical governance and command attention; alleged breakdowns across assignments (Hawaii to Texas) could prompt wider reviews of credentialing, reporting and inter-facility communication. The parallel tracks of criminal investigation, administrative review and civil litigation mean outcomes could range from criminal charges and loss of medical privileges to institutional reforms and compensation for victims.
For service members and dependents, the practical implications include potential changes to how patients are notified of suspected provider misconduct, modifications to chaperone policies during intimate exams, and expanded training or monitoring. Congressional or Inspector General interest is possible if the case reveals systemic lapses in protecting beneficiaries, and legal precedent from any civil settlements might shape facility practices nationwide.
Comparison & Data
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2019 | McGraw begins assignment at Tripler Army Medical Center (alleged earlier complaints cited in suit) |
| Oct. 14, 2025 | Alleged secret recording and exam described in civil complaint |
| Oct. 17, 2025 | Jane Doe interviewed by Army CID; McGraw suspended by Fort Hood |
The table places the lawsuit’s central dates in context: the complaint links alleged conduct at Tripler beginning in 2019 with incidents at Fort Hood culminating in an Oct. 14 exam and an Oct. 17 suspension. The plaintiff’s counsel reports representing 45 additional alleged victims, which—if verified—would indicate a substantially larger scope than a single-plaintiff case. Statistical verification of the total number of affected patients awaits CID findings and any internal patient audits conducted by the medical center.
Reactions & Quotes
“My client has been fully cooperative with the investigation,”
Daniel Conway, McGraw’s attorney (as reported to NBC News)
Conway’s comment, relayed to media, emphasizes the defense stance that the subject is engaging with investigators. The criminal probe and administrative reviews will determine evidence admissibility and potential charges.
“Additional administrative measures, which are not publicly releasable, were also taken to ensure patient safety,”
Fort Hood public statement (base officials)
The base statement confirms a suspension beginning Oct. 17 and indicates multiple internal reviews. Officials also reported sending notification letters to patients seen by the provider.
“I represent 45 other alleged victims,”
Andrew Cobos, plaintiff’s attorney (as reported to CBS News)
Cobos’ statement signals broader civil claims and potential consolidated litigation; however, the number remains an assertion until substantiated through discovery or criminal findings.
Unconfirmed
- The lawsuit’s assertion that Army leadership knew of credible complaints during McGraw’s Hawaii assignment remains an allegation pending independent verification by investigators and is not yet proven.
- The reported total of 45 additional alleged victims is an attorney statement; the exact number and identities of other potential victims have not been publicly validated by investigators.
- Claims about the precise devices and full extent of recorded material are described in the complaint and reported interviews but await forensic confirmation by CID and evidence disclosed in discovery.
Bottom Line
The civil complaint against Maj. Blaine McGraw alleges serious violations of patient privacy and inappropriate clinical conduct that, if substantiated, could lead to criminal charges, civil liability and institutional reform at military treatment facilities. The Army CID criminal investigation and multiple administrative reviews will be the primary mechanisms for establishing facts and determining accountability; their findings will also influence any civil trial or settlement talks.
For patients and advocates, the case underscores the need for transparent reporting, timely outreach to potentially affected patients, and review of policies—such as chaperone presence and device controls—during intimate exams. Observers should expect a sequence of investigative updates, potential additional civil filings, and possible policy responses from military medical leadership as facts are established.