Brooke Mitchell

The registrant admitted to professional misconduct for validating insurance claims for orthotics dispensed by clinic staff and non-registrants, falsifying patient records, and providing false information to an insurance company.

Prior to the hearing, the registrant undertook to permanently resign from the College and never reapply.

The Discipline Tribunal accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering a reprimand and $8,000 in costs, finding that the permanent resignation adequately protected the public and the penalty did not bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The registrant admitted to professional misconduct for failing to meet practice standards and keep adequate records when prescribing orthotics.

The College and the registrant presented a joint submission on penalty, which included a net four-month suspension, coursework, practice supervision, and a reprimand.

The Tribunal accepted the joint submission, finding that the proposed penalty was proportionate to similar cases and did not bring the administration of the professional discipline system into disrepute.

The registrant was also ordered to pay $23,000 in costs.

The College alleged that the Member, a chiropodist, engaged in sexual abuse and professional misconduct by having inappropriate personal and sexual communications with a patient and engaging in inappropriate touching during an unscheduled clinic visit.

The Discipline Committee found the patient's evidence to be unreliable due to inconsistencies and evasiveness during cross-examination.

Conversely, the Member's evidence was clear, consistent, and supported by clinical notes and clinic security protocols.

The College failed to prove the allegations on a balance of probabilities, and the allegations were dismissed.

The College alleged that the Member, a chiropodist, engaged in sexual abuse and professional misconduct by having inappropriate personal and sexual communications with a patient and engaging in inappropriate touching during an unscheduled clinic visit.

The Discipline Committee found the patient's evidence to be unreliable due to inconsistencies and evasiveness during cross-examination.

Conversely, the Member's evidence was clear, consistent, and supported by clinical notes and clinic security protocols.

The College failed to prove the allegations on a balance of probabilities, and the allegations were dismissed.