Ohio Ethics Commission

The Ohio Ethics Commission entered the Billy Milligan case amid renewed criticism of Dr. David Caul’s treatment decisions. Its investigation focused on allegations of improper conduct and special privileges; after months of legal maneuvering, Caul was unanimously cleared of wrongdoing.

Investigation and Complaint

When reports reached Columbus that Billy Milligan’s treatment plan again included furloughs, attacks on Caul resumed. The Ohio Ethics Commission was instructed to investigate with a view to pressing charges over alleged improper conduct in the performance of his duties. The allegation was that Milligan received special privileges because Caul was secretly writing a book about him. Since an investigation required a lodged complaint, the Commission arranged for one of its own attorneys to file it.

Dispute Over Clinical Judgment

The inquiry unfolded alongside a wider dispute over whether Milligan’s treatment and leave conditions were appropriate. In an affidavit filed on July 17, 1979, Caul argued that his clinical decision had generated the controversy, and that professionals knowledgeable about the subject supported it. He also contended that the attacks reflected publicity-seeking by a legislator and questionable journalism. These were Caul’s claims in his defense, not findings attributed to the Commission.

Resolution and Significance

The investigation led to many months of costly legal proceedings, including subpoenas, depositions, and countersuits. The Ohio Ethics Commission ultimately cleared Caul unanimously of any wrongdoing. During the process, Caul said that protecting his reputation and family increasingly consumed his time and energy, but he refused to keep Milligan confined simply to quiet public and political pressure when he believed the patient’s therapy required ordinary clinical treatment. The Commission’s role thus became part of the book’s larger account of how Billy Milligan’s treatment was scrutinized beyond the clinic, and how allegations about professional conduct became entangled with disagreements over care.