DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE
OF THE COLLEGE OF NURSES OF ONTARIO
PANEL: Michael Hogard, RPN Chairperson Andrea Arkell Public Member David Edwards, RPN Member Shaneika Grey, RPN Member Sandra Larmour Public Member
BETWEEN:
COLLEGE OF NURSES OF ONTARIO ) JOSEPH BERGER for ) College of Nurses of Ontario
- and - )
JOSE AVENA ) NO REPRESENTATION for Registration No. 10431589 ) Jose Avena ) CHRISTOPHER WIRTH ) Independent Legal Counsel
Heard: March 30, 2023
DECISION AND REASONS
This matter came on for hearing before a panel of the Discipline Committee (the “Panel”) of the College of Nurses of Ontario (the “College”) on March 30, 2023, via videoconference.
The Allegations
The allegations against Jose Avena (the “Member”) as stated in the Notice of Hearing dated February 24, 2023 are as follows:
IT IS ALLEGED THAT:
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 while working as a Registered Nurse at Princess Margaret Hospital in Toronto, Ontario (the “Facility”), you contravened a standard of practice of the profession or failed to meet the standards of practice of the profession, and in particular, in or around 2015 to 2016, you submitted and/or accepted payment for false claims under the Facility’s employee group benefit plan.
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(8) of Ontario Regulation 799/93, in that while working as a Registered Nurse at Princess Margaret Hospital in Toronto, Ontario (the “Facility”), you misappropriated property from a client or workplace, and in particular, in or around 2015 to 2016, you submitted and/or accepted payment for false claims under the Facility’s employee group benefit plan.
You 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 while working as a Registered Nurse at Princess Margaret Hospital in Toronto, Ontario (the “Facility”), you falsified a record relating to your practice, and in particular, in or around 2015 to 2016, you submitted and/or accepted payment for false claims under the Facility’s employee group benefit plan.
You 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 while working as a Registered Nurse at Princess Margaret Hospital in Toronto, Ontario (the “Facility”), you signed or issued, in your professional capacity, a document that you knew or ought to have known contained a false or misleading statement, and in particular, in or around 2015 to 2016, you submitted and/or accepted payment for false claims under the Facility’s employee group benefit plan.
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(37) of Ontario Regulation 799/93, in that while working as a Registered Nurse at Princess Margaret Hospital in Toronto, Ontario (the “Facility”), 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 as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional, and in particular, in or around 2015 to 2016, you submitted and/or accepted payment for false claims under the Facility’s employee group benefit plan.
Member’s Plea
The Member admitted the allegations set out in paragraphs #1, #2, #3, #4 and #5 in the Notice of Hearing. The Panel received a written plea inquiry which was signed by the Member. The Panel also conducted an oral plea inquiry and was satisfied that the Member’s admission was voluntary, informed and unequivocal.
Agreed Statement of Facts
College Counsel and the Member advised the Panel that agreement had been reached on the facts and introduced an Agreed Statement of Facts, which as amended reads, unedited, as follows:
MEMBER
Jose Avena (the “Member”) registered with the College of Nurses of Ontario (“CNO”) as a Registered Nurse (“RN”) in the General Class on August 30, 2010.
At the time of the incidents described below, the Member was employed as an RN at Princess Margaret Hospital, located in Toronto, Ontario (the “Facility”).
BENEFIT PLAN
The Facility offers its employees a self-insured group insurance policy by which the Facility provides coverage to employees for extended health care, dental, and other insurance benefits (the “Benefit Plan”). Sun Life Financial (“Sun Life”) administers the Benefit Plan on behalf of the Facility. The Facility, however, is the plan sponsor for the Benefit Plan, and therefore funds the cost of claims paid out to employees under the plan.
To submit a benefit claim, members of the Benefit Plan were required to complete a medical expense claim form provided by Sun Life. The medical expense claim form requires certain information, including information on the plan member, any dependents, and the nature of the claim. The plan member must certify that all goods or services were received as claimed and that “the information provided for this claim is true and complete”, and then sign.
INCIDENTS RELEVANT TO ALLEGATIONS OF PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT
Between 2015 to 2016, the Member submitted false claims totaling $2,000 to the Benefit Plan for a rigid brace, compression stockings, custom orthotics and shoe modifications.
In August 2017, Sun Life alerted the Facility that it had identified higher than expected costs in certain benefits categories and had conducted a review of benefits use at the Facility. Sun Life delisted a number of suppliers that it concluded had facilitated fraudulent claims. One of the service providers investigated by SunLife was Downtown Wellness and Foot Care (“Downtown Wellness”).
The Facility initiated an internal investigation which included interviews of staff involved, including the Member, who had submitted claims from Downtown Wellness.
On February 27, 2018, the Facility interviewed the Member. During the interview, the Member denied knowingly or intentionally participating in a fraudulent benefits scheme.
The Facility required the Member to make restitution in the amount of $2,100 and suspended the Member without pay from his employment for five days.
The Member paid full restitution.
If the Member were to testify, he would say that he was under the impression that Downtown Wellness was a reputable establishment. The Member would also testify that he signed papers presented to him and received materials he thought was claimed for, but it turns out the claims sent by the establishment were for more expensive items. The Member would further testify that he acknowledges that it was his responsibility to ensure the claims submitted to the Benefit Plan were accurate and he apologizes and takes responsibility for his conduct.
BENEFIT FRAUD CASES
- To date, at least 80 benefit fraud cases involving substantially similar schemes as the one identified in this case, involving either cash or products not covered by the benefit plan, have been referred to the Discipline Committee. The dollar amounts of the false claims involved range from under $500 to over $45,000.
CNO STANDARDS
Professional Standards
CNO’s Professional Standards provides an overall framework for the practice of nursing and a link with other standards, guidelines and competencies developed by CNO. It includes seven broad standard statements pertaining to accountability, continuing competence, ethics, knowledge, knowledge application, leadership and relationships.
CNO’s Professional Standards provides, in relation to the accountability standard, that nurses are accountable to the public and responsible for ensuring their practice and conduct meets the legislative requirements and the standards of the profession. Nurses are responsible for their actions and the consequences of those actions as well as for conducting themselves in ways that promote respect for the profession. Nurses demonstrate this standard by actions such as ensuring their practice is consistent with CNO’s standards of practice and guidelines as well as legislation.
CNO’s Professional Standards provides, in relation to the leadership standard, that leadership requires self-knowledge (understanding one’s beliefs and values and being aware of how one’s behaviour affects others), respect, trust, integrity, shared vision, learning, participation, good communication techniques and the ability to be a change facilitator. The leadership expectation is not limited to nurses in formal leadership positions and all nurses, regardless of their position, have opportunities for leadership. Nurses demonstrate this standard by actions such as role-modelling professional values, beliefs and attributes.
Ethics
CNO’s Ethics Standard describes ethical values that are important to the nursing profession in Ontario including patient well-being, patient choice, privacy and confidentiality, respect for life, maintaining commitments, truthfulness and fairness.
CNO’s Ethics Standard provides, in relation to maintaining commitments, that nurses have a commitment to the nursing profession and being a member of the profession brings with it the respect and trust of the public. To continue to deserve this respect, nurses have a duty to uphold the standards of the profession, conduct themselves in a manner that reflects well on the profession, and to participate in and promote the growth of the profession.
CNO’s Ethics Standard also provides, in relation to truthfulness, that truthfulness means speaking and acting without intending to deceive.
The Member admits and acknowledges that he contravened CNO’s Professional Standards and Ethics Standard.
ADMISSIONS OF PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT
The Member admits that he committed the acts of professional misconduct as alleged in paragraph 1 of the Notice of Hearing in that he contravened a standard of practice of the profession or failed to meet the standards of practice of the profession, as described in paragraphs 5 to 11 and 13 to 19 above.
The Member admits that he committed the acts of professional misconduct as alleged in paragraph 2 of the Notice of Hearing in that he misappropriated property from a workplace, as described in paragraphs 5 to 11 above.
The Member admits that he committed the acts of professional misconduct as alleged in paragraph 3 of the Notice of Hearing in that he falsified a record relating to his practice, as described in paragraphs 5 to 11 above.
The Member admits that he committed the acts of professional misconduct as alleged in paragraph 4 of the Notice of Hearing in that he signed or issued, in his professional capacity, a document that he knew or ought to have known contained a false or misleading statement, as described in paragraphs 5 to 11 above.
The Member admits that he committed the acts of professional misconduct as alleged in paragraph 5 of the Notice of Hearing, and in particular his conduct was dishonourable and unprofessional, as described in paragraphs 5 to 11 and 13 to 19 above.
Submissions on liability were made by College Counsel.
College Counsel asked the Panel to accept the Agreed Statement of Facts, as well as the Member’s admissions to all the allegations as set out at paragraphs 20-24 of the Agreed Statement of Facts and, on the basis of those facts and admissions, make findings of professional misconduct with respect to the allegations in the Notice of Hearing.
With respect to allegation #1, College Counsel submitted that the Agreed Statement of Facts provides the Panel with all of the relevant College standards and includes the Member’s admission that those standards were breached. College Counsel submitted that it is on this basis that findings can be made with respect to breaching the College's standards of practice.
With regard to allegation #5, College Counsel submitted that the parties have agreed that the Member’s conduct is relevant to the practice of nursing and is dishonourable and unprofessional. The parties agreed that the conduct was not disgraceful. College Counsel submitted that the false claims were sent to Princess Margaret Hospital’s (the “Facility”) employee group benefit plan (the “Benefit Plan”) and that the Member’s conduct is relevant to the practice of nursing in that he was only able to participate in the Benefit Plan by virtue of his nursing employment. College Counsel submitted that the Member’s conduct was unprofessional as his professional obligation is to act with integrity and trust and his actions constituted a disregard for those obligations. College Counsel submitted that the Member’s conduct was also dishonourable because, whether intentional or not, the underlying misconduct had an element of deceit and, regardless of intention, the Member is accountable for the claims submitted in his name.
College Counsel asked the Panel to find that the Member committed professional misconduct on all allegations in the Notice of Hearing.
The Member made no submissions on liability.
Decision
The College bears the onus of proving the allegations in accordance with the standard of proof, that being the balance of probabilities based upon clear, cogent and convincing evidence.
Having considered the evidence and the onus and standard of proof, the Panel finds that the Member committed acts of professional misconduct as alleged in paragraphs #1, #2, #3, #4 and #5 of the Notice of Hearing. As to allegation #5, the Panel finds that the Member engaged in conduct that would reasonably be regarded by members of the profession to be dishonourable and unprofessional.
Reasons for Decision
The Panel considered the Agreed Statement of Facts and the Member’s plea and finds that this evidence supports findings of professional misconduct as alleged in the Notice of Hearing.
Allegation #1 in the Notice of Hearing is supported by paragraphs 5 to 11 and 13 to 20 in the Agreed Statement of Facts. The Member admitted to submitting false claims through the Facility’s Benefit Plan between 2015 to 2016 for a rigid brace, compression stockings, custom orthotics and shoe modifications and to receiving $2,000.00 in relation to those false claims. The Member contravened the College’s Professional Standards which provide that nurses are accountable to the public and responsible for ensuring their practice and conduct meets legislative requirements and the standards of the profession. The Member also contravened the College’s Ethics Standard which describes the ethical values that are important to the nursing profession in Ontario, including maintaining commitments, truthfulness and fairness.
Allegation #2 in the Notice of Hearing is supported by paragraphs 5 to 11 and 21 in the Agreed Statement of Facts. The Member admitted to misappropriating property from the Facility when he submitted false claims through the Facility's Benefit Plan and received money for those false claims. Receiving money with respect to false benefit claims constitutes misappropriation of property.
Allegation #3 in the Notice of Hearing is supported by paragraphs 5 to 11 and 22 in the Agreed Statement of Facts. The Member admitted to falsifying a record relating to his practice when he submitted false claims to the Facility’s Benefit Plan. The Member had access to the Benefit Plan by virtue of his employment as a nursing professional and so his actions were related to his practice as a nurse. Accordingly, the facts support the allegation that the Member falsified a record relating to his practice and did so in the context of his employment as a Registered Nurse (“RN”) at the Facility.
Allegation #4 in the Notice of Hearing is supported by paragraphs 5 to 11 and 23 in the Agreed Statement of Facts. The Member admitted to signing or issuing, in his professional capacity, a document that he knew or ought to have known contained a false or misleading statement. As noted above, the Member had access to the Facility’s Benefit Plan by virtue of his employment as a nursing professional. When he signed and submitted claims on his behalf, he did so in his capacity as an RN employee of the Facility. Accordingly, the facts support the allegation that the Member signed or issued, in his professional capacity, a document that he knew contained a false or misleading statement.
Allegation #5 in the Notice of Hearing is supported by paragraphs 5 to 11, 13 to 19 and 24 in the Agreed Statement of Facts. The Panel finds that the Member’s conduct in submitting false benefit claims was clearly relevant to the practice of nursing and was unprofessional as it demonstrated a serious and persistent disregard for his professional obligations as set out in the Professional Standards and the Ethics Standard.
The Panel also finds that the Member’s conduct was dishonourable. It demonstrated an element of dishonesty and deceit through making claims to the Facility’s Benefit Plan that he knew or ought to have known were false. The Member knew or ought to have known that his conduct was unacceptable and fell below the standards of a professional.
Penalty
College Counsel and the Member advised the Panel that a Joint Submission on Order had been agreed upon. The Joint Submission on Order requests that this Panel make an order as follows:
Requiring the Member to appear before the Panel to be reprimanded within 3 months of the date that this Order becomes final.
Directing the Executive Director to suspend the Member’s certificate of registration for 3 months. This suspension shall take effect from the date that this Order becomes final and shall continue to run without interruption as long as the Member remains in a practicing class.
Directing the Executive Director to impose the following terms, conditions and limitations on the Member’s certificate of registration:
a) The Member will attend 2 meetings with a Regulatory Expert (the “Expert”), at the Member’s own expense and within 6 months from the date that this Order becomes final. To comply, the Member is required to ensure that:
i. The Expert has expertise in nursing regulation and has been approved by CNO in advance of the meetings;
ii. At least 5 days before the first meeting, or within another timeframe approved by the Expert, the Member provides the Expert with a copy of:
the Panel’s Order,
the Notice of Hearing,
the Agreed Statement of Facts,
this Joint Submission on Order, and
if available, a copy of the Panel’s Decision and Reasons;
iii. Before the first meeting, the Member reviews the following CNO publications and completes the associated Reflective Questionnaires, online learning modules and decision tools (where applicable):
Code of Conduct,
Professional Standards, and
Ethics;
iv. At least 5 days before the first meeting, or within another timeframe approved by the Expert, the Member provides the Expert with a copy of the completed Reflective Questionnaires;
v. The subject of the sessions with the Expert will include:
the acts or omissions for which the Member was found to have committed professional misconduct,
the potential consequences of the misconduct to the Member’s patients, colleagues, profession and self,
strategies for preventing the misconduct from recurring,
the publications, questionnaires and modules set out above, and
the development of a learning plan in collaboration with the Expert;
vi. Within 30 days after the Member has completed the last session, the Member will confirm that the Expert forwards their report to CNO, in which the Expert will confirm:
the dates the Member attended the sessions,
that the Expert received the required documents from the Member,
that the Expert reviewed the required documents and subjects with the Member, and
the Expert’s assessment of the Member’s insight into the Member’s behaviour;
vii. If the Member does not comply with any one or more of the requirements above, the Expert may cancel any session scheduled, even if that results in the Member breaching a term, condition or limitation on the Member’s certificate of registration;
b) For a period of 12 months from the date the Member returns to the practice of nursing, the Member will notify the Member’s employer(s) of the decision. To comply, the Member is required to:
i. Inform any employer of the decision prior to commencing or prior to resuming employment in any nursing position;
ii. Ensure that CNO is notified of the name, address, and telephone number of all employer(s) within 14 days of commencing or resuming employment in any nursing position;
iii. Provide the Member’s employer(s) with a copy of:
the Panel’s Order,
the Notice of Hearing,
the Agreed Statement of Facts,
this Joint Submission on Order, and
a copy of the Panel’s Decision and Reasons, once available;
iv. Ensure that within 14 days of the commencement or resumption of the Member’s employment in any nursing position, the employer(s) forward(s) a report to CNO, in which it will confirm:
that they received a copy of the required documents, and
that they agree to notify CNO immediately upon receipt of any information that the Member has breached the standards of practice of the profession.
All documents delivered by the Member to CNO, the Expert or the Member’s employer(s) will be delivered by verifiable method, the proof of which the Member will retain.
Penalty Submissions
Submissions were made by College Counsel.
The aggravating factors in this case were:
The Member’s misconduct involved dishonesty and deceit;
The Member’s misconduct occurred at the expense of his employer-funded benefit plan;
The Member ought to have known what he was doing was wrong; and
The Member’s misconduct resulted in him taking advantage of the trust placed in him by the Facility and the Benefit Plan.
The mitigating factors in this case were:
The Member made restitution to the Facility;
The Member has no prior discipline history with the College;
The Member has taken responsibility for his actions by entering into an Agreed Statement of Facts and a Joint Submission on Order with the College thereby:
o Saving the College time and resources that it would otherwise spend prosecuting the matter; and
o Saving the discipline panel time and resources.
The proposed penalty provides for general deterrence through the 3-month suspension of the Member’s certificate of registration, which sends a strong signal to all members of the profession that this type of conduct is unacceptable.
The proposed penalty provides for specific deterrence through the oral reprimand, which will assist the Member in achieving a greater understanding of how his actions are perceived by his colleagues and members of the public and the 3-month suspension of the Member’s certificate of registration, which sends a strong signal to the Member that this type of conduct is unacceptable and will not be tolerated in the nursing profession.
The proposed penalty provides for remediation and rehabilitation through the 2 meetings with a Regulatory Expert, which will allow the Member to review the College’s standards and publications and break down his conduct to gain a better understanding of how to better uphold his professional obligations in the future and to return to ethical practice.
Overall, the public is protected through the 12 months of employer notification, which will ensure that the Member’s employer has a greater degree of oversight upon his return to practice following his period of suspension.
College Counsel submitted the following cases to the Panel to demonstrate that the proposed penalty fell within the range of similar cases from this Discipline Committee:
CNO v. Soosaipillai (Discipline Committee, 2022): In this case, the hearing proceeded by way of an Agreed Statement of Facts and a Joint Submission on Order. The member made false claims to her employer-funded benefit plan totalling $2,150.00. The member had received a five-day unpaid suspension and entered into a Payment Agreement with the facility to pay the money back. The penalty ordered by the panel included an oral reprimand, a 3-month suspension of the member’s certificate of registration, 2 meetings with a Regulatory Expert and 12 months of employer notification.
CNO v. Manzanilla (Discipline Committee, 2022): In this case, the hearing proceeded by way of an Agreed Statement of Facts and a Joint Submission on Order. The member made false claims to her employer-funded benefit plan totalling $1,600.00. The member made restitution. The penalty included an oral reprimand, a 3-month suspension of the member’s certificate of registration, 2 meetings with a Regulatory Expert and 12 months of employer notification.
CNO v. Nisbet (Discipline Committee, 2022): In this case, the hearing proceeded by way of an Agreed Statement of Facts and a Joint Submission on Order. The member made false claims to her employer-funded benefit plan totalling $3,025.47. The member made restitution. The penalty included an oral reprimand, a 3-month suspension of the member’s certificate of registration, 2 meetings with a Regulatory Expert and 12 months of employer notification.
The Member made no submissions on penalty.
Penalty Decision
The Panel accepts the Joint Submission on Order and accordingly orders:
The Member is required to appear before the Panel to be reprimanded within 3 months of the date that this Order becomes final.
The Executive Director is directed to suspend the Member’s certificate of registration for 3 months. This suspension shall take effect from the date that this Order becomes final and shall continue to run without interruption as long as the Member remains in a practicing class.
The Executive Director is directed to impose the following terms, conditions and limitations on the Member’s certificate of registration:
a) The Member will attend 2 meetings with a Regulatory Expert (the “Expert”), at the Member’s own expense and within 6 months from the date that this Order becomes final. To comply, the Member is required to ensure that:
i. The Expert has expertise in nursing regulation and has been approved by CNO in advance of the meetings;
ii. At least 5 days before the first meeting, or within another timeframe approved by the Expert, the Member provides the Expert with a copy of:
the Panel’s Order,
the Notice of Hearing,
the Agreed Statement of Facts,
this Joint Submission on Order, and
if available, a copy of the Panel’s Decision and Reasons;
iii. Before the first meeting, the Member reviews the following CNO publications and completes the associated Reflective Questionnaires, online learning modules and decision tools (where applicable):
Code of Conduct,
Professional Standards, and
Ethics;
iv. At least 5 days before the first meeting, or within another timeframe approved by the Expert, the Member provides the Expert with a copy of the completed Reflective Questionnaires;
v. The subject of the sessions with the Expert will include:
the acts or omissions for which the Member was found to have committed professional misconduct,
the potential consequences of the misconduct to the Member’s patients, colleagues, profession and self,
strategies for preventing the misconduct from recurring,
the publications, questionnaires and modules set out above, and
the development of a learning plan in collaboration with the Expert;
vi. Within 30 days after the Member has completed the last session, the Member will confirm that the Expert forwards their report to CNO, in which the Expert will confirm:
the dates the Member attended the sessions,
that the Expert received the required documents from the Member,
that the Expert reviewed the required documents and subjects with the Member, and
the Expert’s assessment of the Member’s insight into the Member’s behaviour;
vii. If the Member does not comply with any one or more of the requirements above, the Expert may cancel any session scheduled, even if that results in the Member breaching a term, condition or limitation on the Member’s certificate of registration;
b) For a period of 12 months from the date the Member returns to the practice of nursing, the Member will notify the Member’s employer(s) of the decision. To comply, the Member is required to:
i. Inform any employer of the decision prior to commencing or prior to resuming employment in any nursing position;
ii. Ensure that CNO is notified of the name, address, and telephone number of all employer(s) within 14 days of commencing or resuming employment in any nursing position;
iii. Provide the Member’s employer(s) with a copy of:
the Panel’s Order,
the Notice of Hearing,
the Agreed Statement of Facts,
this Joint Submission on Order, and
a copy of the Panel’s Decision and Reasons, once available;
iv. Ensure that within 14 days of the commencement or resumption of the Member’s employment in any nursing position, the employer(s) forward(s) a report to CNO, in which it will confirm:
that they received a copy of the required documents, and
that they agree to notify CNO immediately upon receipt of any information that the Member has breached the standards of practice of the profession.
All documents delivered by the Member to CNO, the Expert or the Member’s employer(s) will be delivered by verifiable method, the proof of which the Member will retain.
Reasons for Penalty Decision
The Panel understands that the penalty ordered should protect the public and enhance public confidence in the ability of the College to regulate nurses. This is achieved through a penalty that addresses specific deterrence, general deterrence and, where appropriate, rehabilitation and remediation. The Panel also considered the penalty in light of the principle that joint submissions should not be interfered with lightly.
The Panel concluded that the proposed penalty is reasonable and in the public interest. The Member has co-operated with the College and, by agreeing to the facts and a proposed penalty, has accepted responsibility.
The Panel finds that the penalty satisfies the principles of specific and general deterrence, rehabilitation and remediation, and public protection. Specific deterrence is met through the oral reprimand and the 3-month suspension of the Member’s certificate of registration. General deterrence is met through the 3-month suspension of the Member’s certificate of registration. Rehabilitation and remediation are met through the 2 meetings with a Regulatory Expert, completion of a learning plan and review of the College’s standards and publications. The penalty allows the Member to reflect on his misconduct and gain a higher degree of insight on the obligations the public expects from nursing professionals. Public protection is met through the 12 months of employer notification.
The penalty is also in line with what has been ordered in previous cases in similar circumstances.
I, Michael Hogard, RPN, sign this decision and reasons for the decision as Chairperson of this Discipline panel and on behalf of the members of the Discipline panel.