by  John Luciew | jluciew@pennlive.com| Penn Live | published June 4, 2025

EXTERIOR:   PATIO, HERSHEY PA HOME OF DR. SCOTT LYNCH

Award winning Pennlive reporter, John Luciew, sits down with Dr. Scott Lynch and attorney, Steven F. Marino, for an exclusive interview after winning a stunning verdict against Penn State.

JOHN LUCIEW: The secrecy, the lack of transparency, you said, you had it in your closing, you know that was one of the contrasts you drew and one of the big secrets of the trial was this Boland Report, and now right after the verdict, there’s this leak to the Associated Press that reports to be the Boland Report.  What did you guys think of what’s been reported so far, and what impact would that have had on the trial if it had come out earlier?

STEVEN MARINO, ESQUIRE: What was upsetting about this, about the Boland Report, is his [Bob Boland, attorney, professor, and former Athletics Integrity Officer at Penn State] very essence of existence is supposed to be for transparency and to make sure that ethical obligations are followed.  It’s his whole job. And throughout the course of this trial, we find out that he prepared a report, but instead of undertaking his duties and responsibilities to do exactly that, be transparent and be ethical and to come to a conclusion so we could advance the welfare of athletes, he [Bob Boland] sought the advice of council and hid behind the attorney client privilege.  Penn State sought the advice of counsel and apparently he says, I don’t believe it for one moment –  Mr. Integrity who has no Integrity, he [Bob Boland] claims that he then undertook his investigation at the direction of counsel,  and Judge Dowling, and maybe properly so, we followed his order, he [Judge Andrew H. Dowling] ruled that under the attorney client privilege, his [Bob Boland] investigation was subject to non-disclosure.  So, we didn’t have the benefit of that report at all.  Now, we’re finding out, after the trial, we knew it existed because he [Bob Boland] disclosed his findings to Dr Lynch, but we don’t know what’s in the report and it was done at the direction of counsel.  I don’t know how reliable it is.

JOHN LUCIEW: And you made the point doctor, that you don’t you’re not even sure if this was the original report that got leaked.  Explain what you think of it this this leak.

DR. SCOTT LYNCH: The timing is interesting.

JOHN LUCIEW: Right.

DR. SCOTT LYNCH: They [Penn State] did all they could to hide it for five years and then all of a sudden the trial ends and it comes out.  You have to remember; we got a hold of it [The Boland Report] before the trial ended, then we get to have all the drafts that were done up to that and all his notes of the investigation to go with it.  So now the trial’s over, suddenly the report comes out with none of the background that supposed to go with it.  That AP [Associated Press] reporter called me and talked to me and he told me that he’s friends with Bob Boland.  When he was interviewing me, he said Bob did not give him the report.  He [Associated Press Reporter] didn’t say who gave it to him.  We saw in the trial that Bob was less than honest.  He’s [Bob Boland] talking to me on his wife’s phone, so maybe Bob let his wife disclose it, or gave it to a friend to disclose it, we just don’t know.

JOHN LUCIEW: What do you think the motive is of putting the report out now?  Is there anything you can draw?

DR. SCOTT LYNCH: Well the article sort of alluded that it wasn’t that bad, but I kind of disagree with that as well.  The standard that AP reporter tried to use and what Charmell [Charmelle Green, Former Penn State Assistant Athletic Director] tried to use was the standard of Franklin putting a player in that wasn’t medically clear.  That’s not the standard.  The standard is them trying to bully the medical staff into changing decisions.  That’s not appropriate.  If I don’t give in and then he doesn’t put the player in, that can’t happen because there are people out there who will give in.  And as a medical community, we have to admit that.  There are some people who give in.  Every doping scandal in the world, every major doping scandal in the world, has been physician organized.  So we have to acknowledge that sometimes we’re less than perfect as well.  So, the standard can’t be frankly put someone in.  The standard needs to be coaches have to stop trying to influence decisions.

JOHN LUCIEW: Okay.  What would the impact have been if that came out during the trial, this leak, The Boland Report?  Could that have been a mistrial or, what do you think could have happened?

STEVEN MARINO, ESQUIRE: It would depend on what the report said. If it was disclosed and it was favorable to us, I probably wouldn’t move for mistrial.  But, then the question is well why was it disclosed, and there would be some legal challenges with regard to that.  But, it may not have had any impact; it depends on what the findings are.  And I’m suggesting that the findings probably aren’t reliable.  If it was done by Boland, at the direction of counsel, and counsel has to know, they have to report,  they have to disclose that report to the trustees, the findings aren’t going to be reliable.

JOHN LUCIEW: Do you think The Boland Report, the fact that it was kept to be this big secret, you know what I mean, and it was referenced throughout the trial, but then there would be an objection, you know,  or something, did that put in the mind of the jury that they were hiding something.  In other words, did the secrecy of  The Boland Report work against the defense.

STEVEN MARINO, ESQUIRE: In my opinion yes.

JOHN LUCIEW: And you drew that out in the end. You drew that out that this is the cover up on this side and this is the transparency on this side.

STEVEN MARINO, ESQUIRE: Common sense and sensible thinking would suggest if it was favorable, they would have disclosed it.  They would have put on the billboard!  So common sense would suggest that if you draw the inference it was negative to them; it was adverse to them.

JOHN LUCIEW: And the jury saw that, you think?

STEVEN MARINO, ESQUIRE: I don’t know what’s in the mind of the jury, but that was the inference they should have drawn; a reasonable person would have drawn that conclusion in my mind based on the evidence.  But we don’t know what’s in the report.  We don’t know.  And, we don’t know if it was sanitized.  We don’t know what Boland wrote and gave to the lawyers, and then the lawyers probably sanitized it.  I suspect that’s what happened.

JOHN LUCIEW: Moving on.  After,…. oh go, go ahead

DR. SCOTT LYNCH: So the other thing is the jury heard essentially the same information Bob Boland got.  Same witnesses, pretty much the same everything.  They made a very different conclusion than what’s reported in The Boland Report. In our opinion, perfectly so.

JOHN LUCIEW: And their conclusion, and all of the information they got is now public.  So what does that mean to you?

DR. SCOTT LYNCH: That’s what I wanted. Things have to change.  That’s my goal.

JOHN LUCIEW: And in the days since the verdict, what’s life been like?  What are you hearing from people? Negative, positive.  I mean, what has changed so far?

DR. SCOTT LYNCH: I have not gotten one negative comment.  People at work have come up to me and give me hugs,  saying that you did the right thing.  We know it wasn’t about the money for you, it was about trying to do the right thing to protect kids.  I hear that over and over and over.

JOHN LUCIEW How comfortable is it though knowing that you sued your employer, and I don’t know if that Dr. Black [Kevin Black, MD, orthopedic surgeon] is still your supervisor or not.

DR. SCOTT LYNCH: No he’s not.

JOHN LUCIEW: Okay.  But at the time when you filed the suit, he was, right?  And a friend!

DR. SCOTT LYNCH:Yes.

JOHN LUCIEW: How comfortable or uncomfortable was that?

DR. SCOTT LYNCH: I don’t think about that kind of stuff.  I just know what’s the right thing to do is to protect the kids.  Whatever happened to me, happened to me.  I wasn’t worried about that.

JOHN LUCIEW: And going back to work, you were in surgery today, right?

DR. SCOTT LYNCH: Yes.

JOHN LUCIEW: So, is it back to normal at work or what’s different?

DR. SCOTT LYNCH: Yeah, other than people coming up, and they tell me congratulations, my response always is, well the congratulations should be to the student athletes not to me.

JOHN LUCIEW: Right. And one of the recommendations which you put forward, you know, in some of the correspondence you had after your dismissal, you know with the 10 recommendations and there was a lot of back and forth at the trial about those.  But of those, is there any way to get any action on any of those? – I guess is my question.

DR. SCOTT LYNCH: I guess we’ll find out. We haven’t had,  Steve [Steven Marino, Esquire] and I,  haven’t had a lot of time to sit down and strategize on where we go from here yet.

JOHN LUCIEW: But one of the key ones [10 recommendations] was that you think in every athletic department there has to be sort of what?  Describe what was the key part of that recommendation?  Describe this.

DR. SCOTT LYNCH: So similar to the drug testing program.

JOHN LUCIEW: Yeah.

DR. SCOTT LYNCH: There needs to be independent oversight, independent from the universities.  So that someone like Bob Boland can’t go, as an employee of the University, go to council at the University, to cover everything up.  There has to be someone outside of the University who monitors all that stuff.

JOHN LUCIEW: But that person would be around the program though.

DR. SCOTT LYNCH: Yes.  So they would be embedded at the University, but employed by somebody else.  And the University will pay out to have that person hired and be there.

JOHN LUCIEW: And it would be what? NCAA?  Would it be like a Big 10?  Or what would be the entity you think?

DR. SCOTT LYNCH: I don’t think the NCAA or the Big 10 can do it either.

JOHN LUCIEW: Ok.

DR. SCOTT LYNCH: They’re also in a conflict of interest.  Because they’re making tons of money. So, there’s a company called Drug-Free Sport that runs the drug testing program.  It’s a separate entity.  You get contracted by the NCAA, they also do the Big 10, to come in and do the drug testing program.  So, there’s a completely independent body that’s not beholden to the university or the NCAA.   They can cancel the contract of course, but in terms of the workings of how everything’s done, it’s independent.

JOHN LUCIEW: And that person would be, like, you talked about the weekly stuff that would happen.  You’d have your injury list,  you’d have the questions and answers from the coach, and the doctor.  How would this be different with this independent person?  Like, what would be happening?

DR. SCOTT LYNCH: This independent person would not take care of any of the athletes…

JOHN LUCIEW: Right.

DR. SCOTT LYNCH: so they, again, remove that conflict of interest.  Their role is oversight; to go talk to the physicians, talk to the coaches, talk to the players.  They would be in charge of hiring and firing of the medical staff.  So that’s all independent, and try to remove as best you, it can never be totally removed, but try to remove the conflict of interest as best you can.

JOHN LUCIEW: So even though that medical staff of the team would be employed by the university, this person would have sort of hiring and firing power over that.

DR. SCOTT LYNCH: Correct.

JOHN LUCIEW: Okay.

DR. SCOTT LYNCH: That’s my idea.

JOHN LUCIEW: Okay.

DR. SCOTT LYNCH: You know, these are all ideas that can be tweaked…

JOHN LUCIEW: Right.

DR. SCOTT LYNCH: If someone will ever have a conversation with me about it.

JOHN LUCIEW: There was a little bit of talk, you know, of retirement at the trial too.  Where do you go from here? You were talking about how tough it’s been to build back the practice after having so much work tied to the Penn State program and then trying to get all of those sort of surgeries back up online.  What’s ahead for you personally.

DR. SCOTT LYNCH: I, again, I haven’t had time to sit down and think through all that yet. So, I’m not sure. I’ve talked about retiring, you know, loosely for a while (laughs); I think most people my age do (laughs).  So, but I got to sit down and talk to Steve, and talk to my wife.

JOHN LUCIEW: And you turned 63 the night of the verdict came in, right?

DR. SCOTT LYNCH: Correct.

JOHN LUCIEW: Wow. Wow.

DR. SCOTT LYNCH: I told her [Debbie Lynch, wife] I can’t wait to see how she tops it next year. (laughs)

JOHN LUCIEW: All right! Yeah, that was a party.  What did you guys do after the verdict?  Given that it was your birthday and that you won the case, was there a big party or what?

DR. SCOTT LYNCH: No.

STEVEN MARINO, ESQUIRE: We just had a beer! (laughs)

DR. SCOTT LYNCH: We had some food and beer. At the pub there.

JOHN LUCIEW: There’s this statement out from Penn State Health about a possible appeal.  Is there is anything, idea what that could look like, or what, they would try to appeal?

STEVEN MARINO, ESQUIRE: Judge Dowling [Judge Andrew H. Dowling]  ran a very clean trial, I thought.  He was efficient.  He was fair.  He made rulings on both sides; for and against us, for and against them.  I thought he was very clean.  I don’t see any significant appellant issues at all.  It’s always a threat by everyone who’s disgruntled with the verdict.  I thought he ran a very clean efficient trial.  He was a very fair judge, no complaints.

JOHN LUCIEW: And there was this constant motion though, about trying to just say that it didn’t meet the standard of the law, the at-will employee, you know the exceptions, or stuff like that.  Was that just perfunctory defense going through the motions there or what was that all about?

STEVEN MARINO, ESQUIRE: I don’t think their arguments had any merit, but this cause of action is very unique and it’s very limited in Pennsylvania.  So, what this lawsuit has done, it has established that the standard of care for a doctor who manages collegian athletes, now includes making sure that their medical decisions aren’t interfered with with a judge.  The NCAA, the NCAA guidelines, and the Big 10 rules, those are rules that apply to some private organization like the National rifer Association or the milk maid association, and the NCAA, they’re private organizations.  That’s not Pennsylvania law.  This case established Pennsylvania LAW.  That’s the difference.  The standard of care now INCLUDES not allowing a medical judgment to be interfered with by a coach.  That’s the standard of care now in Pennsylvania.  That’s the Law!.  And if you adversely affect someone, a doctor who does that, it creates now a cognizable cause of action; we call it an employment action.  That’s what this case established.  It’s very important; the first one in the nation.

JOHN LUCIEW: Wow.

STEVEN MARINO, ESQUIRE: That’s why it’s so important.  The NCAA standards now have become Pennsylvania law.

JOHN LUCIEW: Oh, so that was sort of an NCAA rule that you couldn’t interfere…

STEVEN MARINO, ESQUIRE: Right. That’s not Pennsylvania policy.

JOHN LUCIEW: And that’s something you couldn’t sue on!

STEVEN MARINO, ESQUIRE: Can’t sue on it.  It’s not Pennsylvania policy. Now, it is recognized, even though not verbatim, in theory it’s recognized as Pennsylvania law.  That’s why this case is so important.

JOHN LUCIEW: Do you think now that this is established we’re going to see more suits regarding this?

STEVEN MARINO, ESQUIRE: Well, this case is a very unique fact pattern. But, if another medical provider suffers an adverse consequence,  a job consequence, because they followed the standard of care when they’re dealing with collegiate athletes, we have a precedential cause of action.  It could be a cognizable claim; at least in Pennsylvania it will be.  Other states, they all have their own different rules and regulations, their own common law, so I don’t know how it would be in other states, but the theory is proper.  This is a part of now Pennsylvania public policy that implicates the important public policy of public health, welfare, and safety.  That’s why it’s so important.

JOHN LUCIEW: Okay.  I like that. In terms of having everything come out that came out, you know, and you did promised fireworks and you delivered.  What’s the damage to Penn State brand as a result of this?  I mean, you had two cases of doctors being fired sort of at the coach’s behest; you know what I mean.  That was pretty well established, I thought.  Now the fact pattern wasn’t the same for Sebastianelli [Dr. Wayne Sebastianelli, former Director of Athletic Medicine and head orthopedic surgeon for Penn State Athletics].   It wasn’t because he was clashing over player decisions and medical treatments, but it was sort of, the coach wanted him out so he was gone.

STEVEN MARINO, ESQUIRE: Do you want my opinion or his [Dr. Scott Lych’s] opinion?

JOHN LUCIEW: Yeah both.

STEVEN MARINO, ESQUIRE: I closed on the football team in 1946 where Steve Suhey*, the lineman and captain of the Penn State football team, where they [Penn State football team] refused to play without their African American players against the segregated Mississippi, and he [Steve Suhey] said “We Are One, We Are Penn State”.   They stood for dignity, they stood for principle, they stood for integrity.  Just like him [Steve Susrey], we stand for integrity.  If you’re blue and white, if you’re part of the nation, you stand for integrity, you stand for principle, you stand for honesty,  you stand for transparency, you stand for what Dr. Lynch represents.  You don’t stand for what Hershey [Penn State Milton S. Hershey Medical Center] represented in that trial.  They can’t claim that “We Are” — We can.  That’s the difference.  That’s the brand.

JOHN LUCIEW: And you think you reminded Penn Staters who might just as say, well this is creating, you know, a bad look for the site.  You’re reminding them, hey, that integrity is more important?  Do you think this trial reminds them…

STEVEN MARINO, ESQUIRE: If you’re going to claim blue and white, if you’re going to claim you’re part of the nation, if you’re going to claim, “We are Penn State”, yes, integrity first.

JOHN LUCIEW: Dr. Lynch, what are your thoughts on how this reflected on Penn State, something near and dear to you.

DR. SCOTT LYNCH: As I said in my trial, it’s yes and no.  The people on the other side of the courtroom, that’s not, they’re not Penn State.  The people in the trenches, people I work with every day at Penn State Health, the same thing.  The people in the trenches, the people who come up to me and say, thank you.  The athletic trainers who are ecstatic that I did this to help them, that’s Penn State and Penn State Health; that’s not the bureaucrats and the lawyers.  They’re screwing it all up.  And you know, “We Are” is people in the trenches doing the work, the hard work.  One of my good friends, I won’t tell you his name, he’s worked at Penn State for 40 years, he now says, “We Were”.   We need to get back to the upper-level of people doing transparency and the same thing.

JOHN LUCIEW: And you thought that lesson was learned during the Sandusky* episode and you had this integrity office that was born of that scandal, yet it didn’t work here.  Does that lead to…

DR. SCOTT LYNCH: Well it was actually exactly the opposite.  What happened is they figured out they could use that Integrity Officer position to hide things.  They didn’t actually have to keep it after the Sandusky sanctions went away. They decided to keep it.  And then they used it to cover up things; that’s why Bob Boland ran to the attorneys right away; not to do the job he was supposed to do. He [Bob Boland] used that position to hide information.  I mean, think about that, how sick is that.

JOHN LUCIEW: Will you ever be able to enjoy it like you used to.  You know, the whole Penn State experience of being an alumni, of being a former athlete, of being, you know, a national champion wrestler for the Nittany Lions?

DR. SCOTT LYNCH: If they start doing the right thing and be transparent, and if the administration starts to do that, yeah.  I love Penn State; it changed my life.  I wouldn’t be where I’m at without Penn State, so it’s the people in the trenches and who are doing the hard work.

JOHN LUCIEW: And I know you had the athletes foremost in this thing from the beginning.  Two high-profile athletes sort of came up for Franklin, do you think, in time, you’ll hear from more athletes, you know, about what you did?

DR. SCOTT LYNCH: I’ve already heard from some.

JOHN LUCIEW: Okay. So, it’s just, you know, it’s one of these things where they’ll come to you, but they might not want to sit on a on a witness stand.

DR. SCOTT LYNCH: Yeah, it’s hard. What Rob Windsor* did took an amazing amount of courage.  To go against, you know, a school, like us!  It was hard for us! [Dr. Lynch points to Steve Marino].  Rob Windsor didn’t have anything to gain by doing that, personally.  He wanted, wants them, again, to do the right thing.

JOHN LUCIEW: And Steve, do you think other people, who might have something that is a miss at Penn State, they might come to you, to help them out.  Are you sort of developing a reputation of somebody who can go against Penn State and win?

STEVEN MARINO, ESQUIRE: I don’t know if I can comment on that (laughs slightly).  I did my job in this case.  But, like Dr Lynch said, I’m a Penn State athlete; I went to Penn State on an athletic scholarship; I was a gymnast. I was on a national team and it didn’t please me, you know, when I got called upon to do this.  I had to think through it long and hard!  But I’m with him (points to Dr. Lynch),   integrity first.  And when he [Dr. Lynch] says it wasn’t hard to sue his employer, he’s being very modest.  It’s difficult, difficult, to make a choice to sue and potentially hurt the things that we love; things that change our lives, change tradition, that takes tremendous courage.  He’s being modest (laughter).

JOHN LUCIEW: As always.  Well guys, I really appreciate your time on this and I like how we put it into a personal perspective but also that legal perspective of the ground that was broken on this case in terms of standard of care.

STEVEN MARINO, ESQUIRE: It is groundbreaking, you’re right.  That’s a good way to describe it.

DR. SCOTT LYNCH: I want to share one other thing.  You know, we just touched the surface of how many kids were affected by this.  I had a player send me a text after Dr Seidenberg [Dr. Peter Seidenbert, MD, orthopedic surgeon, formerly served as a team physician for Penn State  football] talked about the suicide issue, and he wanted to know if that was about him.  And it was not about him, but there’s many other things that have happened that have not come light.

Employers who violate the law should be held accountable. If you were wrongfully terminated because of discrimination, retaliation, whistleblowing, or another unlawful reason, Marino Associates is prepared to investigate your claim, preserve critical evidence, and aggressively pursue the compensation and justice you deserve. Call ( (215) 462-3200 or complete our online contact form to speak with an experienced wrongful termination attorney today. Your case consultation is free.