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. X, 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. X is a physiotherapist who has practised since 1966. Most recently he has practiced in ABC, Ontario.

On May 1, 1995, Mr. X entered into a partnership agreement with a limited company which was owned by Ms. Y. Ms. Y is the wife of Dr. Y, a physician.

The physiotherapy clinic was located in the same building as Dr. Y's office up until 1996 when it relocated to a separate building. Monthly rent was paid by XXX Physiotherapy to YYY, a company owned by Dr. Y.

Dr. Y's G-code clinic stopped operating at the suggestion of Mr. X while XXX physiotherapy clinic was operating.

XXX Physiotherapy was the only physiotherapy clinic within a 25 mile radius of the town of ABC.

On or about February 1997, Mr. X served notice to dissolve the partnership agreement.

The investigation revealed Mr. X'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

1. Findings of the panel with respect to failing to maintain standards
2. Findings related to conflict of interest
3. Findings relating to disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional conduct:
   The panel was of the opinion that Mr. X lied to the College investigator when initially asked about his business arrangements. Mr.X 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. X 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. X 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:

1. A term and condition of Mr. X'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 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. 


2. 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 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 record keeping 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. X's practice does not conform to record keeping standards, the six month suspension shall come into force on a date fixed by the Registrar.

Costs

The panel, after due consideration of Mr. X's personal and professional circumstances, awarded costs to the College in the amount of $4000.00.