College of Nurses of Ontario v. Pontin, 2010 ONCNO 100037

PANEL: Agnese Bianchi, RN Chairperson Margaret McGinn, RN Member Marilyn McGill, RPN Member Linda Bracken Public Member

BETWEEN:

COLLEGE OF NURSES OF ONTARIO NICK COLEMAN for College of Nurses of Ontario

and -

PAULA PONTIN Registration No. 9914862 NO ONE PRESENT for Paula Pontin

AARON DANTOWITZ Independent Legal Counsel

Heard: October 4-6 and November 15-17, 2010

DECISION AND REASONS

This matter came on for hearing before a panel of the Discipline Committee on October 4, 5, 6, November 15, 16, and 17, 2010 at the College of Nurses of Ontario (“the College”) at Toronto.

As Paula Patricia Pontin (the “Member”) was not present, the hearing recessed for 30 minutes to allow time for the Member to appear. Upon reconvening the panel noted that the Member was not in attendance and was not represented.

Counsel for the College provided the panel with evidence that the Member had been sent the Notice of Hearing on June 2, 2010 by regular mail and that a copy was left by a process server at the Member’s address on June 10, 2010. The panel was satisfied that the Member had received adequate notice and therefore proceeded with the hearing in the Member’s absence.

The Allegations

Counsel for the College advised the panel that the College was requesting leave to withdraw the allegations set out in paragraphs 1k, 2a, 3b, 3c, 4b, 4c and 6k of the Notice of Hearing dated May 31, 2010. The panel granted this request. The remaining allegations set out in the Notice of Hearing are as follows.

You have committed an act of professional misconduct as provided by subsection 51(1)(c) of the Health Professions Procedural Code of the Nursing Act, 1991, S.O. 1991, c. 32, as amended, and defined in subsection 1(1) of Ontario Regulation 799/93, in that you contravened a standard of practice of the profession or failed to meet the standards of practice of the profession, and in particular:

a) in or about April 2007, you provided a resume to [Facility A] representing yourself as a Nurse and/or a Registered Nurse when your certificate of registration had been suspended;

b) on or about July 4, 2007, you falsified a prescription for Oxycontin 80 mg;

c) on or about August 25, 2007, you falsified a prescription for Oxycontin 80 mg;

d) during the period May 8, 2007 to August 27, 2007, you misappropriated approximately $12,000.00 from [Facility A];

e) in or about April 2007, you provided a resume to [Facility B] representing yourself as a Nurse and/or a Registered Nurse when your certificate of registration had been suspended;

f) in or about September 2007, you provided a resume to [Facility C] representing yourself as a Nurse and/or a Registered Nurse when your certificate of registration had been suspended;

g) during the period September 25, 2007 – November 21, 2007, you represented to [Facility C] that you were a Registered Nurse and worked as a Registered Nurse for that company when your certificate of registration in the College of Nurses of Ontario had been suspended;

h) in or about January 2008, you provided a resume to [Facility D] representing yourself as a Nurse and/or a Registered Nurse when your certificate of registration had been suspended;

i) in or about January 2008, you falsified a College of Nurses of Ontario annual payment card, which you provided to [Facility D];

j) during the period January 7, 2008 – June 15, 2008, you represented to [Facility D] that you were a Registered Nurse and worked as a Registered Nurse for that company when your certificate of registration had been suspended;

k) [Withdrawn]

l) during the period January 2008 to June 2008, on one or more occasions, you told a staff member at [Facility D] to provide you with a urine sample so that you could submit it as your own urine sample.

You have committed an act of professional misconduct as provided by sub-section 51(1)(c) of the Health Professions Procedural Code of the Nursing Act, 1991, S.O. 1991, c. 32, as amended, and sub-section 1(8) of Ontario Regulation 799/93, in that you misappropriated property from a client or workplace, and in particular:

a) [Withdrawn]

b) during the period May 8, 2007 to August 27, 2007, you misappropriated approximately $12,000.00 from your employer, [Facility A].

You have committed an act of professional misconduct as provided by subsection 51(1)(c) of the Health Professions Procedural Code of the Nursing Act, 1991, S.O. 1991, c. 32, as amended, and defined in subsection 1(14) of Ontario Regulation 799/93, in that you falsified records relating to your practice, and in particular;

a) in or about April 2007, you provided a resume to [Facility A] representing yourself as a Nurse and/or a Registered Nurse when your certificate of registration had been suspended;

b) [Withdrawn]

c) [Withdrawn]

d) in or about April 2007, you provided a resume to [Facility B] representing yourself as a Nurse and/or a Registered Nurse when your certificate of registration had been suspended;

e) in or about September 2007, you provided a resume to [Facility C] representing yourself as a Nurse and/or a Registered Nurse when your certificate of registration had been suspended;

f) in or about January 2008, you provided a resume to [Facility D] representing yourself as a Nurse and/or a Registered Nurse when your certificate of registration had been suspended; and/or

g) in or about January 2008, you falsified a College of Nurses of Ontario annual payment card, which you provided to [Facility D].

You have committed an act of professional misconduct as provided by subsection 51(1)(c) of the Health Professions Procedural Code of the Nursing Act, 1991, S.O. 1991, c. 32, as amended, and defined in subsection 1(15) of Ontario Regulation 799/93, in that you signed or issued, in your professional capacity, a document or documents that you knew or ought to have known contained false or misleading statements, and in particular:

a) in or about April 2007, you provided a resume to [Facility A] representing yourself as a Nurse and/or a Registered Nurse when your certificate of registration had been suspended;

b) [Withdrawn]

c) [Withdrawn]

d) in or about April 2007, you provided a resume to [Facility B] representing yourself as a Nurse and/or a Registered Nurse when your certificate of registration had been suspended;

e) in or about September 2007, you provided a resume to [Facility C] representing yourself as a Nurse and/or a Registered Nurse when your certificate of registration had been suspended;

f) in or about January 2008, you provided a resume to [Facility D] representing yourself as a Nurse and/or a Registered Nurse when your certificate of registration had been suspended; and/or

g) in or about January 2008, you falsified a College of Nurses of Ontario annual payment card, which you provided to [Facility D].

You have committed an act of professional misconduct as provided by subsection 51(1)(c) of the Health Professions Procedural Code of the Nursing Act, 1991, S.O. 1991, c. 32, as amended, and defined in subsection 1(19) of Ontario Regulation 799/93, in that you contravened section 11 of the Nursing Act, 1991 by using the title “Registered Nurse” and/or “Nurse and/or by holding yourself out as a person qualified to practi[s]e in Ontario as a nurse, and in particular:

a) in or about April 2007, you provided a resume to [Facility A] representing yourself as a Nurse and/or a Registered Nurse when your certificate of registration had been suspended;

b) in or about April 2007, you provided a resume to [Facility B] representing yourself as a Nurse and/or a Registered Nurse when your certificate of registration had been suspended;

c) during the period September 2007 to November 2007, you represented yourself as a Registered Nurse to [Facility B] when your certificate of registration had been suspended;

d) in or about September 2007, you provided a resume to [Facility C] representing yourself as a Nurse and/or a Registered Nurse when your certificate of registration had been suspended;

e) during the period September 2007 to November 2007, you represented yourself as a Registered Nurse to [Facility C] when your certificate of registration had been suspended;

f) in or about January 2008, you provided a resume to [Facility D] representing yourself as a Nurse and/or a Registered Nurse when your certificate of registration had been suspended; and/or

g) during the period January 2008 to June 2008, you represented yourself as a Registered Nurse to [Facility D] when your certificate of registration had been suspended.

You have committed an act of professional misconduct as provided by sub-section 51(1)(c) of the Health Professions Procedural Code of the Nursing Act, 1991, S.O. 1991, c. 32, as amended, and sub-section 1(37) of Ontario Regulation 799/93, in that you engaged in conduct or performed an act, relevant to the practice of nursing, that, having regard to all the circumstances, would reasonably be regarded by members of the profession as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional in that:

a) in or about April 2007, you provided a resume to [Facility A] representing yourself as a Nurse and/or a Registered Nurse when your certificate of registration had been suspended;

b) on or about July 4, 2007, you falsified a prescription for Oxycontin 80 mg;

c) on or about August 25, 2007, you falsified a prescription for Oxycontin 80 mg;

d) during the period May 8, 2007 to August 27, 2007, you misappropriate approximately $12,000.00 from the [Facility A];

e) in or about April 2007, you provided a resume to [Facility B] representing yourself as a Nurse and/or a Registered Nurse when your certificate of registration had been suspended;

f) in or about September 2007, you provided a resume to [Facility C] representing yourself as a Nurse and/or a Registered Nurse when your certificate of registration had been suspended;

h) in or about January 2008, you provided a resume to [Facility D] representing yourself as a Nurse and/or a Registered Nurse when your certificate of registration in the College of Nurses of Ontario had been suspended;

i) in or about January 2008, you falsified a College of Nurses of Ontario annual payment card, which you provided to [Facility D];

k) [Withdrawn]

Member’s Plea

Given that the Member was not present nor represented, she was deemed to have denied the allegations in the Notice of Hearing. The Hearing proceeded on the basis that the College bore the onus of proving the allegations in the Notice of Hearing against the Member.

Overview

The Member was initially registered as a Registered Nurse with the College in 1999. Her certificate of registration was suspended in May 2006 for non-payment of fees. Between May 2006 and January 2008, the Member sought employment, and was employed, as a Registered Nurse. The Member provided a resume to four different facilities representing herself as a Registered Nurse. The Member was employed at [Facility A] (May – Aug 2007) where she falsified prescriptions for narcotics and misappropriated a large sum of money. She was then hired by [Facility C] (September – November 2007) through [Facility B] (April – November 2007) as a Registered Nurse. When she was unable to provide a current Annual Payment Card (APC) to either agency, her position was terminated. The Member was then hired as a Nurse Administrator at [Facility D] (January – June 2008). She was terminated when she asked a co-worker for a urine specimen for her own use. When the College was notified about the Member’s termination, [Facility D] discovered that the Member’s registration had been suspended for non-payment of fees and that the APC the Member had provided had been falsified.

The issues are as follows:

Did the Member represent herself as a Registered Nurse (RN) on her resume and work as an RN when her certificate of registration was suspended?
Did the Member falsify prescriptions?
Did the Member misappropriate funds?
Did the Member provide a falsified APC?
Did the Member request a urine sample from a co-worker for her own use?

The panel heard evidence from [ten] witnesses, [including] one expert witness, and received forty-two exhibits to consider. The panel found the factual allegations against the Member were proven. Based on those facts, the panel found that the Member committed professional misconduct by failing to meet the standards of practice and engaged in conduct that would be regarded by members of the profession to be disgraceful, dishonourable and unprofessional.

The Evidence

The evidence consisted of forty-two exhibits and the oral testimony of ten witnesses, including one expert witness.

Suspended Registration

The Member was suspended May 31, 2006 for non-payment of fees as per the Public Register Report [ ] and the College’s Notice of Suspension dated May 30, 2006 [ ].

[Facility A]

As an Administrator at [Facility A,] the Member was responsible for various accounting activities including writing cheques, depositing of cash and cheques, and use of the office debit card. [ ]

[Witness #1] was the lead physician at [Facility A]. As lead physician, she was responsible for the team. [Witness #1] and another member of [Facility A] interviewed the Member for an administrative position at [Facility A]. [Witness #1] identified the Member’s resume [, ] which described the Member as an RN and as being registered with the College. During an interview with [Witness #1], the Member described herself as an RN and stated she was a member of the College.

[Witness #1] testified that [Facility A] office received a fax for [Witness #4] on August 27, 2007, which was a Prescription Refill Reauthorization Request [ ] for the Member. [Witness #1] testified that [Witness #4] drew the faxed document to her attention, stating he had never seen the Member as a [client] and never written her a prescription. [Witness #1] then received a faxed copy of the original prescription from [the pharmacy], and discovered that the signature was not that of [Witness #4]. On August 27, the witness and [Witness #4] met with the Member, who acknowledged that [Witness #4] never saw her as a [client] or wrote her a prescription. [Witness #1] stated that the Member was suspended on August 27, 2007, from [Facility A] as they needed to investigate prescription forgery. The witness identified the hand-written notation [ ] dated August 28 on the bottom of the Member’s resume. [The author of the note] had contacted the College on behalf of [Facility A] and learned that the Member’s certificate of registration had been suspended as of May 2006 due to non-payment of fees [ ]. On August 29, 2007, the College and the police were contacted with respect to the forged prescriptions.

[Witness #1] testified that [Facility A] were “not happy with the accounting procedures,” and [an] accounting firm [ ] was asked to investigate. Following their forensic audit, [the accounting firm] reported a total loss of $15,556.58. [Witness #1] identified the [ ] Audit Report [ ].

[Witness #2], a Pharmacist [ ], was familiar with the Member who had been a [clinet] of the pharmacy since 2001. [Witness #2] identified two Oxycontin prescriptions [ ]. Upon the Member’s insistence, the Pharmacy Assistant, [ ], faxed the Prescription Refill Reauthorization Request to the [Facility A] office for [Witness #4] on August 25, 2007. The prescription was filled on August 25, 2007, and picked up by the Member on August 25, 2007. The witness indicated on the Prescription Refill Reauthorization Request that the last fill for 60 tablets of Oxycontin 80 milligrams for the Member was July 4, 2007 [ ].

[Witness #3], the Pharmacy Assistant [ ], testified that she recalled the incident of August 25, 2007, with the Member. After receiving a call from the Member inquiring about her Oxycontin prescription, the witness faxed the Prescription Refill Reauthorization Request to the [Facility A] office for [Witness #4] and received back a prescription from the [Facility A] office for the Member. After receiving the prescription, the witness filled the prescription and had it checked by [the pharmacist]. The prescription was picked up by the Member on the same day.

[Witness #4] was a physician for many years with [Facility A], including in 2007 when the Member was hired as an Administrator. [Witness #4] testified he never had a physician-[client] relationship with the Member nor did he ever prescribe drugs for her. On August 27, 2007, he received a fax [ ] for a refill request authorization for an Oxycontin prescription August 25, 2007 [ ] from [the pharmacy] for the Member. [Witness #4] verified the refill request fax. He noted on the refill that the pharmacy filled an original prescription on July 4 2007. He phoned [the pharmacy] and asked them to fax him the original [ ]. [Witness #4] stated that the signatures on the July 4, 2007, original prescription and the August 25, 2007, prescription were not his, and he had not issued the prescriptions. [Witness #4] and [Witness #1] met with the Member on August 27, 2007, and showed her the Oxycontin prescriptions. She denied any knowledge of them. [Witness #4] followed up with other team physicians, contacted the Canadian Medical Protective Association, the College of Physicians and Surgeons, [Facility A]’s lawyer and [Facility A]’s bank to freeze the account the Member had accessed. He also called the police to report the prescriptions issue.

Criminal Code Findings - College Counsel submitted certified transcripts from the Ontario Court of Justice of the Proceeding [and] Guilty Plea dated December 7, 2009 [ ] and the Reasons for Sentence dated February 17, 2010 [ ]. The Member [pleaded] guilty to four charges arising out of the facts described above:

forging a prescription;
forging a cheque;
using a credit card in the name of [Facility A]; and
stealing money, not exceeding $5,000, from [Facility A].

[Facility B]

[Witness #5] was the Man[a]ger of the Healthcare Division of [Facility B] in 2007. [Facility C] contracted with [Facility B] for a Registered Nurse in 2007. The witness recalled the Member applying for the Registered Nurse position on April 4, 2007 [ ]. The Member’s resume included with the application [ ] states she is a “Registered Nurse” and is registered with the College of Nurses of Ontario. A screening interview conducted by the witness deemed the Member to be suitable for the position [ ]. The witness recommended the Member to [Facility C] but the Member did not return the witness’s calls in April/May 2007.

The witness contacted the Member again in September 2007 for another position at [Facility C] for which the Member was considered suitable. The Member began working at [Facility C] on September 25, 2007 [ ]. Following a call from [Witness #6] from [Facility C], the witness noted that the College’s APC provided by the Member had expired in 2005. By following up with the College, the witness learned that the Member’s registration with the College had been suspended on May 31, 2006 for non-payment of fees. The witness notified [Witness #6], and the Member was removed from the schedule until she could produce proof of current registration. The witness called the Member, who stated the College had made a mistake and she was trying to rectify it. There was no further communication between the witness and the Member.

[Facility C]

[Witness #6] is the Co-ordinator of Medical Services at [Facility C] since 1995. The witness is responsible for the hiring of registered nurses, including supplementary registered nurses through [Facility B]. The qualification on the job posting required current registration with the College of Nurses of Ontario [ ].

On September 21, 2007, the Member was interviewed for the job by the witness and [a physician,] at which time the Member confirmed she was registered with the College as per her resume [ ]. The witness testified the Member was employed as a registered nurse from September 25, 2007 to November 21, 2007, as per the staff schedule [ ]. The Member’s electronic signature on [Facility C]’s Electronic Medical Record System indicates the Member signed “Registered Nurse” with her name [ ]. Although she was asked on several occasions to produce a copy of her APC, the Member always had an excuse and never provided one. The witness followed up with [Facility B] for a copy of the Member’s APC and was later informed that the Member’s certificate of registration with the College was suspended for non-payment of fees. The witness called the Member, who informed her that she was suspended but she was going to the College the next day for her registration. There was no further communication with the Member.

[Facility D]

[Witness #7] was co-owner, with his [relative], of [Facility D]. In late 2007, they were seeking to hire a Retirement Home Administrator who was also a Registered Nurse to assist with medication administration and to assess the health and the needs of the residents. The Member was interviewed by [the two owners,] at which time they asked her about her registration status and she told them she was a Registered Nurse. When asked for a document to prove her College membership, she provided her 2008 APC as proof of her current registration [ ]. The Member was hired January 2008 [ ]. On July 3, 2008, after medications were found to be missing and an issue arose with a urine sample, the College was contacted to verify the Member’s registration. At that time, the witness learned that the Member’s APC was not valid and she had been suspended for non-payment of fees on May 31, 2006. Her employment at [Facility D] ended June 2008, when the Member stopped showing up for work.

[Witness #8] began as a housekeeper in October 2007 and in April 2008 she became Assistant to the Administrator, who at that time was the Member. The witness recalled the Member asking her to tell [ ] a Personal Support Worker (PSW) to leave her urine sample on the cart. Following a discussion with the PSW, the witness followed up with the Member. The Member stated that she had cancer, she was going to her doctor, and she did not want nicotine to show up in her urine sample. The PSW was a non-smoker. The witness stated the urine specimen had nothing to do with work and brought her concerns to her boss, [Witness #7].

[The PSW]

College Counsel presented three Affidavits of Attempted Service for Summons to Witness (at Hearing) upon [the PSW]. Three different process servers made ten attempts to serve [the PSW] on various dates between August 27 and November 10, 2010 [ ]. All attempts were unsuccessful. The panel was satisfied that the College made a thorough attempt to serve this witness, and no adverse inference could be drawn from her failure to testify at this hearing.

College of Nurses of Ontario

[Witness #9] has been employed at the College since February 2004. During the time of the Member’s suspension, he worked in the Customer Service & Registration departments. The witness identified the Member’s Reminder to Pay 2006 Outstanding Fees statement dated March 24, 2006, [ ] and the letter notifying the Member of her suspension for non-payment of fees dated May 30, 2006 [ ].

The witness was asked to compare a sample 2005 APC [ ] and a sample 2008 APC [ ] with the card the Member submitted as her 2008 APC to [the owner of Facility B]. The witness noted various inconsistencies between the valid 2008 APC and the card submitted by the Member purporting to be her 2008 APC. These included additional spaces in the terms, conditions, and limitations section, and the certificate number on the 2008 APC submitted by the Member had seven digits instead of the College’s six. The certificate number on the 2008 APC submitted by the Member therefore did not match any certificate number for 2008. Further, the format on the APC submitted by the Member appears to be formatted as a 2005 APC rather than a valid 2008 APC. The conclusion drawn by the panel was that the 2008 APC the Member gave to the [Facility D] was falsified.

Expert Witness

[Witness #10] was accepted by the panel as [an] expert witness, qualified to give opinion evidence with respect to nursing standards.

[The expert] received her B.Sc.N, M.Sc.N. [in 1983] and Ph.D. [in 1989]. She is currently a Professor Emeritus, Faculty of Nursing, [ ] with extensive academic and research experience and is widely published. Since 1995, she has appeared before the College as an expert witness in a number of cases. [ ]

[The expert] was presented with ten hypothetical scenarios [ ] corresponding to the evidence in this case. The essence of [the expert]’s opinion was as follows.

Representation as an RN on her Resume and Worked as an RN is an ethical breach of standards. By misrepresenting herself the RN has been untruthful and is deceiving the public of her practice. Her behaviour would be considered dishonourable and unprofessional.
Falsification of a Prescription is a breach of the Professional Standard of Practice. This behaviour was deceitful, abused the public trust and was untruthful. The behaviour would be deemed to be disgraceful, dishonourable and unprofessional.
Misappropriation of Funds: This fails to meet the Professional Standard of Practice based on the expectations that nurses can maintain the trust of the public. It is also a breach of the Ethical Standard. This behaviour would be seen as disgraceful, dishonourable and unprofessional.
Providing a falsified APC is conduct that contravenes the Professional Standard of Practice. It is deliberate, deceitful behaviour which is regarded as disgraceful, dishonourable and unprofessional.
Request for Urine Sample is a serious contravention of all Standards of practice. This behaviour is untruthful, deceitful and an abuse of power. The Witness stated it is very disturbing behaviour of a Member. This behaviour would be seen as disgraceful, dishonourable and unprofessional.

Final Submissions

College Counsel presented a chronological overview of the evidence.

The Member was registered with the College in July 1999, General Class, RN.
The Member was suspended May 31, 2006 for non-payment of fees, and remained suspended throughout the relevant time. The Member’s address was confirmed to be correct, therefore there are no concerns regarding the notification of the Member or her knowledge regarding her suspension.
[Facility A] employed the Member as an RN from April 2007 to August 2007.
[Facility B] employed the Member as an RN from April 2007 to November 2007.
[Facility C] employed the Member as an RN from September 2007 to November 2007.
[Facility D] employed the Member as an RN from January 2008 – June 2008
Criminal charges arising out of the Member’s conduct while employed at [Facility A] were laid in July 2008. The Member [pleaded] guilty in December 2009.

On the issue of misappropriation of funds and forging of prescriptions, College Counsel submitted that the Member’s guilty plea at the criminal proceedings constitutes a prior admission by [the] Member of guilt with respect to those offences.

College Counsel submitted that the allegations that the Member represented herself as an RN when suspended, falsified a prescription, misappropriated funds, provided a false APC and requested a urine sample from her colleague for her own use are supported on the evidence. The facts support findings of professional misconduct as alleged. As to allegation 6, this behaviour would be considered disgraceful, dishonourable and unprofessional.

Decision

The College bears the onus of proving the allegations. The standard of proof applied by the panel was a balance of probabilities, and the proof must be clear and convincing and based upon cogent evidence accepted by the panel. The panel finds that the Member committed acts of professional misconduct as alleged in paragraphs 1 through 6. In respect of allegation 6, the Member engaged in conduct that would reasonably be regarded by members of the profession as disgraceful, dishonourable and unprofessional.

Reasons for Decision

The panel found the evidence led by the College to have met the onus of proof and to be clear, cogent and convincing. The panel found the witnesses to have no personal interest in the outcome of the hearing. The clarity of the College’s evidence as well as the credible and forthright manner of the witnesses led this panel to make findings of professional misconduct as set out in the Notice of Hearing.

The panel concluded that the Member’s conduct failed to meet and/or contravened the Standards of Practice in that her behavior was highly deceitful, criminal, a betrayal of the public trust and an abuse of power of her position. This behaviour would be viewed by the public and the profession as disgraceful, dishonourable and unprofessional.

Penalty Submissions

College Counsel submitted that the only appropriate penalty in this case is revocation of the Member’s certificate of registration for the following reasons.

Her misconduct was among the most serious categories of misconduct.
Her behaviour was both disgraceful to herself and dishonourable to the profession.
There was an extended pattern of criminal behaviour over two years.
She misrepresented her status as an RN to four separate employers.
She took advantage of her power over a co-worker by requesting a urine specimen for the Member’s own use.
She falsified prescriptions for narcotics.
She falsified an APC.
She misappropriated a significant amount of funds from her employer.

College Counsel stated there were no mitigating factors. College Counsel submitted that deterrence was the main issue in this case rather than rehabilitation. As the Member was not present, it is unknown if she is interested [in] or capable of rehabilitation. Revocation is a deterrent which serves to protect the public by removing the Member from the profession. It sends a clear message to the profession that such behaviour will not be tolerated and demonstrates that the College is capable of regulating the profession in the interest of the public.

College Counsel presented the panel with four previous College cases in which revocation was ordered for similar allegations of professional misconduct. A decision to revoke the Member’s certificate of registration is consistent with prior decisions.

Penalty Decision

The panel accepts the penalty submission of College Counsel and directs the Executive Director to revoke the Member’s certificate of registration.

Reasons for Penalty Decision

The panel agreed with College Counsel that the Member’s misconduct was among the most serious. As the Member was neither present nor represented by counsel, the panel was unable to assess whether the Member had any feelings of remorse or propensity for rehabilitation or remediation. The penalty provides the following:

specific deterrence of the Member;
general deterrence for the profession;
protection of the public interest and assurance that the public trust in the profession will be maintained; and
recognition that the crimes of fraud and misappropriation of funds, deceit, dishonesty, and deliberate abuse of power will not be tolerated.

There are no mitigating factors that would lead the panel to consider a penalty other than revocation.

I, Agnese Bianchi, RN, sign this decision and reasons for the decision as Chairperson of this Discipline panel and on behalf of the members of the Discipline panel as listed below:

Chairperson Date

Panel Members:

Margaret McGinn, RN

Marilyn McGill, RPN

Linda Bracken, Public Member