Walter DeWilde
Discipline Case Summary
The following is a summary of a discipline case heard by a five member panel of the Discipline Committee of the College of Physiotherapists of Ontario on May 15 and 16, 1997.Allegations
Following an investigation into the practice of Mr. Walter DeWilde, the College alleged that the member's conduct constituted professional misconduct. The conduct alleged constitutes professional misconduct under paragraph 2 (Standard of Practice), 8 (Conflict of Interest), 23 (Inconsistency with Legislation), 25 (Unprofessional Conduct), 28 (Refusing to Co-operate with an Investigator) of Section I of Ontario Regulation 861/93.Statement of Agreed Facts
The facts agreed to prior to the commencement of the hearing included the following:Mr. DeWilde is a physiotherapist who has practised since 1966. Most recently he has practiced in Amherstburg, Ontario.
On May 1, 1995, Mr. DeWilde entered into a partnership agreement with a limited company which was owned by Ms. DiPierdomenico. Ms. DiPierdomenico is the wife of Dr. DiPierdomenico, a physician.
The physiotherapy clinic was located in the same building as Dr. DiPierdomenico's office up until 1996 when it relocated to a separate building. Monthly rent was paid by Amherstburg Physiotherapy to Emrose, a company owned by Dr. DiPierdomenico.
Dr. DiPierdomenico's G-code clinic stopped operating at the suggestion of Mr. DeWilde while Amherstburg physiotherapy clinic was operating.
Amherstburg Physiotherapy was the only physiotherapy clinic within a 25 mile radius of the town of Amherstburg.
On or about February 1997, Mr. DeWilde served notice to dissolve the partnership agreement.
The investigation revealed Mr. DeWilde's charts did not meet the standards of practice of the profession due to an absence of objective finding.
The reports of various witnesses and College documents were entered into evidence with the consent of the parties.
Hearing Summary
- Findings of the panel with respect to failing to maintain standards
- Findings related to conflict of interest
- Findings relating to disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional conduct:
It was alleged that Mr. DeWilde's record keeping practices did not meet the standards of practice of the profession. Mr. DeWilde pleaded guilty to this allegation. The panel therefore found him guilty of failing to meet the standards of practice of the profession which is professional misconduct under paragraph 2 of the Ontario Regulation 861/93.
The Discipline Committee reviewed the conflict of interest guidelines published by the Board of Directors of Physiotherapy in April 1986, and revised in April 1989, and accepted these as fairly reflecting the views of the profession with respect to conflict of interest.
Summary of the factual evidence presented at the hearing is as follows:
Mr. DeWilde had a formalized legal partnership agreement with an Ontario limited company whose principal was Ms. DiPierdomenico. Profits and losses from the clinic were to be split equally unless Mr. DeWilde's income fell below a certain level, in which case he would receive 60% of the profits. All cheques, drafts and other documents were co-signed by both partners. Mr. DeWilde agreed not to act in the management of the firm without the express consent of Ms. DiPierdomenico. Mr. DeWilde's involvement was to provide physiotherapy services but the patients were considered to be patients of the parties or partners.
Eighty percent of the patient referrals to the clinic were made by Dr. DiPierdomenico. It was the opinion of the College's expert, Mr. B. (a physiotherapist) that this volume of referrals from a single physician was excessive. Mr. B. stated that the number of patients seen by Mr. DeWilde per day was in accordance with his own practice.
The panel was of the opinion that the facts established that Mr. DeWilde had violated the prohibition against the practice of the profession while in a conflict of interest. The panel agreed with the expert witness that Mr. DeWilde's partnership agreement with Ms. DiPierdomenico was a conflict of interest in view of her spousal relationship with Dr. DiPierdomenico, the source of 80% of the clinic's business. The relationship between Ms. DiPierdomenico and Dr. DiPierdomenico amounted to a benefit being paid by Mr. DeWilde related to referral of patients. The panel therefore found the member guilty of professional misconduct for practising the profession while in a conflict of interest under paragraph 8 of the regulations.
The panel was of the opinion that Mr. DeWilde lied to the College investigator when initially asked about his business arrangements. Mr.DeWilde argued that this occurred because of his concern that providing this information to the investigator would breach the confidentiality requirements of his partnership agreement. The panel believes that if that was his concern, he should have consulted with his partner or sought legal advice, but not mislead the investigator. The panel believes that lying to the investigator would be considered disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional by members of the profession, and therefore found the member guilty of professional misconduct under regulation 25 of the regulations.
In summary, the Committee found Mr. DeWilde guilty of professional misconduct: under paragraph 2 (failing to maintain the standards of practice of the profession), paragraph 8 (practicing the profession while in a conflict of interest), paragraph 25, (engaging in conduct or performing an act that having regard to all the circumstances would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional). The panel found Mr. DeWilde not guilty of paragraphs 23 (inconsistency with legislation) and 28, (refusing to co-operate with an investigator).
Penalty
After taking into consideration the nature of the allegations, the fact that no previous allegations had been brought against the member, the member's co-operation, and his present unemployment status as well as College precedent, the panel arrived at the following penalty:- A term and condition of Mr. DeWilde's certificate of registration is that he participate in a mentorship agreement under the supervision of a mentor approved by the Registrar to improve his record keeping practices within a six month period following the date upon which he resumes practice.
- The certificate of registration of the member shall be suspended for a period of six months. Such suspension itself to be suspended in accordance with the following:
The member shall reimburse the College for the costs of the mentoring relationship up to a maximum of $300 per audit.
The member shall report in writing to the Registrar the name and place of his employment for a period of six months following the date upon which he resumes practice.
- The member agrees to pay within six months a fine of $5000.00,
- The reports of the audit of the member's clinical records confirm that the recordkeeping is in accordance with acceptable standards,
- In the event the member agrees to but fails to pay the fine within the specified time period, the suspension of his certificate of registration shall come into force for the subsequent six month period,
- In the event that either of the reports received by the Registrar indicates that Mr. DeWilde's practice does not conform to record keeping standards, the six month suspension shall come into force on a date fixed by the Registrar.
