Former Oregon Youth Authority Staff Allege Years of Warnings About Sexual Abuse Were Ignored

Photo: MacLaren Youth Correctional Facility, by: Plantsuit, CC BY-SA 3.0, via Wikimedia Commons.

Thirteen former Oregon Youth Authority employees have submitted sworn statements alleging agency leaders knew for years about troubling conduct by a longtime physician accused of sexually abusing young men in state custody but failed to stop him, Oregon Journalism Project reported.

The statements, filed in July 2026 by former doctors, nurses and other OYA staff, add significant new allegations to pending lawsuits involving at least 125 former youths who say they were sexually abused by Dr. Edward Gary Edwards while confined at the MacLaren Youth Correctional Facility in Woodburn.

The alleged abuse occurred from approximately 2000 through 2017, according to court filings. Edwards, who served as MacLaren’s chief medical officer, died in February 2025.

What makes the newly filed statements particularly significant is that they do not focus solely on Edwards’ alleged conduct. They accuse senior Oregon Youth Authority officials of receiving repeated warnings about him while allowing him to continue treating youths.

Former Staff Describe Alleged Abuse During Medical Exams

The lawsuits accuse Edwards of sexually abusing youths during intake examinations and other medical appointments, sometimes when they were seeking treatment for conditions unrelated to their reproductive health.

An amended federal complaint filed July 27 alleges that the abuse included genital touching, digital penetration and other sexual acts carried out under the guise of medical care.

Former OYA clinical psychologist Orin Bolstad said in a sworn statement that youths had nicknamed Edwards “Dr. Cold Fingers.”

According to Bolstad, young people complained that Edwards performed what he described as prostate examinations involving digital penetration without gloves.

Another former OYA physician, Dr. Michael Puerini, challenged the medical necessity of such examinations. Puerini said rectal exams of young men would ordinarily require specific symptoms and that he performed perhaps one or two during roughly 12 years of practice at OYA.

“Digital rectal exams certainly were not routine,” Puerini stated.

The allegations remain claims in pending civil litigation and have not been established at trial.

Lawsuits Allege OYA Received Hundreds of Complaints

The newly submitted declarations may become especially important because they address a central question in institutional sexual abuse litigation:

What did the institution know, and what did it do after receiving warnings?

According to the lawsuits and supporting statements, youths filed hundreds of written grievances concerning Edwards, while staff members also raised concerns.

Complaints were allegedly referred at various times to OYA’s professional standards unit, Oregon State Police, the Oregon Department of Human Services and the Oregon Medical Board.

Yet the lawsuits allege Edwards continued working with young people until his retirement in 2017.

One former OYA nurse, Jeffrey Lynn Anderson, alleged in a sworn statement that the agency did not discipline or terminate Edwards despite repeated complaints because he was the agency’s chief medical officer for juveniles and was inexpensive to employ.

The lawsuits further allege that no OYA director, MacLaren superintendent or other supervisor conducted an adequate follow-up investigation or took sufficient corrective action.

OYA has not admitted those allegations.

Agency spokesperson Debbi Martin said the alleged conduct is “abhorrent” and inconsistent with OYA’s mission, while declining to address specific allegations because the litigation remains pending.

Why the New Staff Statements Could Matter

Sexual abuse lawsuits against institutions often turn on more than whether abuse occurred.

Plaintiffs may also attempt to establish that administrators, supervisors or other officials knew or reasonably should have known that someone posed a danger and failed to take steps that could have prevented further abuse.

That is what makes statements from former insiders potentially significant.

The 13 declarants include people who worked within the system and say concerns about Edwards were known inside the agency. A Portland attorney described the volume of insider declarations as highly unusual.

If the plaintiffs can substantiate allegations that OYA repeatedly received complaints yet allowed Edwards continued access to youths, the cases could raise questions not only about Edwards’ conduct but also about the agency’s supervision, investigative practices and institutional response.

First Oregon Youth Authority Case Heads Toward Mediation

The lawsuits have been divided into groups of plaintiffs, with the first trial scheduled for November 2, 2026, before Chief U.S. District Judge Michael McShane.

The first group of plaintiffs is expected to enter mediation in late August. If a settlement is not reached, the case could proceed to trial.

The Oregon Department of Justice is representing OYA.

DOJ spokesperson Jenny Hansson acknowledged the difficulty involved when survivors and witnesses come forward years later, describing the allegations as heartbreaking while noting that the litigation remains unresolved.

The litigation could ultimately expose Oregon to substantial liability, although comparisons to other institutional abuse settlements should be made cautiously because every case involves different facts, legal theories and numbers of claimants.

Former OYA Director Is Also Named in Litigation

The lawsuits also name Fariborz Pakseresht, who served as OYA director from 2012 through 2017.

Pakseresht later led the Oregon Department of Human Services and retired in 2025. In July 2026, Gov. Tina Kotek brought him back into state government to serve as interim director of the Oregon Health Authority.

His appointment has drawn scrutiny because he is named as a defendant in the pending OYA litigation.

Pakseresht has declined to comment on the allegations, and the governor’s office has said it cannot address pending litigation.

Being named as a defendant does not establish wrongdoing, and the claims against Pakseresht and other defendants remain allegations unless proven or resolved through settlement.

What Oregon Survivors Should Know About Filing Deadlines

Oregon has recently expanded the time available for some survivors of sexual abuse to pursue civil claims.

House Bill 3582, signed into law in 2025, amended Oregon law so that certain civil claims based on child sexual abuse occurring after the law’s effective date may be filed at any time. However, the law treats older claims differently, particularly claims against institutions or others accused of allowing or permitting abuse.

For some claims arising before the change in law, Oregon’s prior framework remains relevant. Under ORS 12.117, child-abuse claims have generally been subject to a deadline of age 40 or five years after discovering the connection between the abuse and the resulting injury, whichever provides more time.

That distinction could be particularly important in cases involving abuse alleged to have occurred decades ago.

Survivors should therefore not assume that an old incident automatically means they are unable to file a claim, or, conversely, that Oregon’s newer law automatically eliminates every deadline for older institutional-abuse claims. The applicable deadline can depend on when the abuse occurred, who is being sued and the legal theory involved.

The Larger Issue: What Happens After Someone Reports Abuse?

For survivors, perhaps the most consequential allegation in the OYA cases is not simply that complaints were made.

It is that, according to the plaintiffs and former employees, complaints were repeatedly made and yet the alleged abuse continued.

Youth correctional facilities exercise extraordinary control over the lives of the young people housed inside them. Those youths generally cannot choose their doctors, leave the facility or simply seek care elsewhere if something feels wrong.

That makes institutional safeguards especially important.

As these cases move toward mediation and trial, the litigation may help determine whether Oregon officials failed to act on warnings that could have prevented additional young people from being harmed.

Related Stories:

Oregon Youth Prison Doctor, “Dr. Cold Fingers,” Faces New Sexual Abuse Lawsuits

More Lawsuits Filed Against Oregon Youth Authority as Abuse Allegations Mount

Sexual Abuse Allegations at Oregon Youth Facilities: Governor Kotek Places Oregon Youth Authority Director On Administrative Leave

Oregon Youth Authority Lawsuit: More Abuse Allegations Emerge

Oregon Youth Authority Hit with $51 Million Lawsuit Over Alleged Sexual Abuse at Juvenile Facility

Oregon Youth Authority Lawsuit: 10 More Men Sue Over Alleged Abuse by State Doctor