Ontario (College of Psychologists of Ontario) v. Lindal, 2017 ONCPD 2

Ontario (College of Psychologists of Ontario) v. Lindal, 2017 ONCPD 2

DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE COLLEGE OF PSYCHOLOGISTS OF ONTARIO

Between:

The College of Psychologists of Ontario

-and-

Dr. Rikardur Lindal

Panel Members:

Dr. Lynette Eulette Chair (Professional Member of Council)

Dr. Allyson Harrison Member (Professional Member)

Dr. Maggie Mamen Member (Professional Member)

Ms. Donna McNicol Member (Public Appointee)

Ms. Ethel Teitelbaum Member (Public Appointee)

Hearing Date: September 27, 2017

Decision Date: September 27, 2017

Release of Written Reasons: December 11, 2017

Counsel: Mr. David Porter for College of Psychologists of Ontario Mr. Ian Roland, Independent Legal Counsel

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION

A hearing of a panel of the Discipline Committee of the College of Psychologists of Ontario (the “Panel”) took place in Toronto on September 27, 2017. The panel of the Discipline Committee was comprised of: Dr. Lynette Eulette, Professional Member of Council (Panel Chair), Dr. Allyson Harrison (Professional Member of the College), Ms. Donna McNicol (Public Member of Council), Ms. Ethel Teitelbaum (Public Member of Council), Dr. Maggie Mamen (Professional Member of the College). The College was represented by Mr. David Porter. Dr. Lindal was self-represented. Mr. Ian Roland was present as Independent Legal Counsel for the Panel.

PRELIMINARY MATTERS

At the outset of the hearing David Porter applied, on behalf of the College, for an order pursuant to subsection 45(3) of the Health Professions Procedural Code banning the public disclosure, including banning the publication or broadcasting of the name of the person assessed by Dr. Lindal. Dr. Lindal did not object to such an order. The Panel granted the order banning the public disclosure of the name of the person. For this reason we have used the letter “X” to identify the person.

THE ALLEGATIONS OF MISCONDUCT

The Notice of Hearing, dated February 14, 2017, set out the allegations against Dr. Lindal, as follows:

IT IS ALLEGED that Dr. Rikardur Lindal is guilty of professional misconduct under section 51(1)(c) of the Code, the Psychology Act, 1991, S.O. 1991, c. 38 (the "Act") and the Regulations thereto, all as amended.

THE PARTICULARS OF THE ALLEGATIONS are as follows:

1. Dr. Rikardur Lindal ("Dr. Lindal") engaged in conduct or performed an act, in the course of practicing the profession that, having regard to all the circumstances, would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional, contrary to Section 1, paragraph 34 of Ont. Reg. 801/93.

2. Dr. Lindal made a record, or issued or signed a certificate, report, or similar document that he knew or ought to have known was false, misleading, or otherwise improper contrary to Section 1, paragraph 20 of Ont. Reg. 801/93.

3. Dr. Lindal submitted an account or charge for services that he knew was false or misleading, contrary to Section 1, paragraph 23 of Ont. Reg. 801/93.

4. Dr. Lindal failed to supervise adequately a person who was under his professional responsibility and who was providing a psychological service contrary to Section 1, paragraph 5, of Ont. Reg. 801/93.

5. Dr. LindaI failed to maintain the standards of the profession contrary to section 1, paragraph 2 of 0. Reg. 801/93. In particular, Dr. Lindal failed to maintain principles:

• 4 (Supervision)

By way of further particulars, it is alleged that:

(a) Mr. X was the defendant in a civil suit for payment owing on psychological services purportedly provided by Ms. S.Y., under Dr. Lindal's supervision, at Assessment Direct.

(b) A psychological assessment report ("Report") dated October 3, 2010, was provided as evidence in support of this lawsuit.

(c) This Report, co-signed by Dr. Lindal and Ms. S.Y., outlined the results of a psychological assessment which purportedly took place on March 24, 2010.

(d) The Report contained inappropriate diagnoses of two mood disorders: Adjustment Disorder with Mixed Anxiety and Depressed Mood and Symptoms of a Specific Phobia, Situational Type (driving/passenger related).

(e) Neither Dr. Lindal nor Ms. S.Y. had ever met Mr. X, interviewed him, or administered any psychological tests on him when this report was written.

(f) Dr. Lindal submitted an invoice for this assessment and report, when no such assessment had ever taken place.

(g) Dr. Lindal's supervision of Ms. S.Y. was inadequate.

IN THE ALTERNATIVE, IF AN ASSESSMENT OF MR. X WAS PERFORMED,

6. Dr. Lindal failed to keep records as required by the regulations, contrary to Section 1, paragraph 19 of Ont. Reg. 801/93.

7. Dr. Lindal failed to maintain the standards of the profession contrary to section 1, paragraph 2 of 0. Reg. 801/93. In particular, Dr. Lindal failed to maintain principles:

• 9.1, 9.2, 9.4, and 9.6 (Records and Record Keeping).

By way of further particulars of the alternative allegations in paragraphs 6-7, if an assessment of Mr. X was performed, it is alleged that:

• Mr. X was the recipient of psychological services provided by Ms. S.Y., under Dr. Lindal's supervision.

• Dr. Lindal failed to maintain Mr. X's psychological records and was unable to produce Mr. X's psychological records upon the College's request.

AGREED STATEMENT OF FACTS

The parties submitted an Agreed Statement of Facts, as follows:

1. Dr. Rikardur Lindal, is engaged in the private practice of psychology in Cobourg, Ontario. His private practice includes independent medical assessments in relation to motor vehicle accidents. He has completed over 2,000 assessments in this area.

2. Dr. Lindal practices psychology through R. Lindal Psychology Professional Corporation. In an agreement dated December 21, 2009, R. Lindal Psychology Corporation entered into an agreement with S.Y., a therapist pursuing her PhD in psychology at Alliant International University, San Diego California, to conduct psychological services, including assessments of motor vehicle accident victims, under the supervision of Dr. Lindal. Ms. S.Y. was pursuing her PhD in clinical psychology, and had previously completed her M.A. in Psychology from Alliant International University, San Diego in May 2006.

3. On March 24, 2010, Ms. S.Y. conducted a psychological assessment of Mr. X, in relation to a motor vehicle accident in which he was involved on December 23, 2009. The psychological assessment was an independent assessment to determine whether Mr. X was suffering from any psychological disorders related to the motor vehicle accident and to make a recommendation with respect to appropriate treatment. Based on the assessment dated March 24, 2010, a report dated October 3, 2010 was prepared bearing the signatures of S.Y. M.A. Psychology (supervised practice) and R. Rick Lindal on behalf of R. Lindal Psychology Professional Corporation.

4. Dr. Lindal had no interaction with, and never met, X.

5. Dr. Lindal received no documentation from S.Y. concerning the assessment and, in particular, did not receive from her any interview notes, test data, or any other documentation with respect to the assessment which she had performed.

6. Although Dr. Lindal reviewed the report which he signed he did not do so with the benefit of a review of any of the documentation in relation to the assessment.

7. After conducting the assessment, S.Y. took the file in relation to the assessment of X to San Diego.

8. The assessment file in the possession of Ms. S.Y. was subsequently destroyed and neither Ms. S.Y. nor Dr. LindaI can currently produce any of the contents of the file. In particular, at the time that he received a letter of complaint in this matter and responded to it on January 8, 2015, Dr. Lindal could not produce any of the contents of the file in relation to this assessment.

9. Dr. Lindal acknowledges that, in the circumstances, he is guilty of professional misconduct by failing to supervise adequately S.Y., who was under his professional responsibility and who was providing a psychological service, contrary to s. 1, paragraph 5 of Ont. Reg. 801/93. In particular, Dr. Lindal admits that he failed to maintain the standards of the profession by failing to maintain principle 4 (Supervision).

10. Dr. Lindal admits that he failed to keep records as required by the regulations contrary to s. 1, paragraph 19 of Ont. Reg. 801/93 and that he failed to maintain the standards of the profession contrary to s. 1, paragraph 2 of Ont. Reg. 801/93 by failing to maintain principles 9.1, 9.2, 9.4 and 9.6 (Records and Record Keeping)

THE PLEA

Dr. Lindal admitted the allegations of professional misconduct as set out in paragraphs numbered 4, 5 re Principles 4 (Supervision), 6 and 7 in the Notice of Hearing. The Panel accepted the admission of professional misconduct to these allegations. The College withdrew allegations of professional misconduct set out in paragraphs numbered 1, 2, 3 and 5 re 10.1 (Fees and Billing Arrangements) and 14.3 (Rendering Opinions).

THE DECISION

The Discipline Committee panel concluded that on the basis of the admission of Dr. Lindal, the Agreed Statement of Facts dated September 15, 2017, and the submissions of the parties that:

1. Dr. Lindal failed to supervise adequately a person who was under his professional responsibility and who was providing a psychological service contrary to s. 1, paragraph 5, of Ont. Reg. 801/93;

2. Dr. Lindal failed to maintain the standards of the profession contrary to s. 1, paragraph 2 of O. Reg. 801/93. In particular, Dr. Lindal failed to maintain principle 4 (Supervision).

3. Dr. Lindal failed to keep records as required by the regulations, contrary to s. 1, paragraph 19 of Ontario Reg. 801/93.

4. Dr. Lindal failed to maintain the standards of the profession contrary to s. 1, paragraph 2 of O. Reg. 801/93. In particular, Dr. Lindal failed to maintain principles 9.1, 9.2, 9.4 and 9.6 (Records and Record Keeping).

THE PENALTY

UPON HEARING the joint submission of Dr. Lindal and College counsel, in respect of the appropriate penalty in relation to the findings of professional misconduct the Discipline Committee accepted the joint submissions and imposed the following penalty:

1. A reprimand;

2. The Registrar is directed to impose the following terms and conditions on Dr. Lindal’s Certificate of Registration as follows:

   a) Dr. Lindal is prohibited from engaging in the supervision of another person in respect of the provision of psychological services for a period of six months from the date of this order;

   b) Commencing 6 months from the date of this order, or so soon thereafter as Dr. Lindal, upon notice to the Registrar, proposes to commence to supervise a supervisee, for the following 9 months from the proposed commencement of the supervision, Dr. Lindal may only engage a supervisee under the mentorship of a registered psychologist, appointed by the Registrar, with whom he will meet monthly and who will provide two reports to the Registrar (one at the mid‑point and one at the conclusion of the nine month supervision, or more frequently should the mentor consider it to be appropriate);

   c) The mentorship will be at Dr. Lindal’s expense and, pursuant to paragraph (b)(ii) of this order, will be for a period of 9 months;

   d) Dr. Lindal will be required to complete the period of peer mentorship to the satisfaction of the Registrar;

   e) The peer mentorship will concern, and the reports to the Registrar will address, the following matters to confirm that:

   A. Dr. Lindal is meeting with supervisees on an appropriately regular basis.

   B. Dr. Lindal is adequately reviewing the work conducted by supervisees.

   C. Dr. Lindal’s supervisory notes are adequate and appropriate.

   D. Dr. Lindal is in possession of and has access to client records at all times.

   E. The supervisory agreement between Dr. Lindal and his supervisees is appropriate.

   F. Dr. Lindal’s clients are made aware of the supervisory arrangement and there is appropriate documentation of their awareness of and consent to the supervisory arrangement in the client file.

REASONS FOR THE PENALTY DECISION

1. A Reprimand

This will serve as a specific and personal deterrent. It is seen as an appropriate means by which members of the Panel could make clear to the member their concerns with respect to the seriousness of his actions, in view of the impact of his misconduct on members of the public and members of the profession. The actions of Dr. Lindal have brought the practice of psychology into disrepute.

2. Imposition of specified terms and conditions on Dr. Lindal’s certificate of registration such that he shall not supervise for 6 months and thereafter be involved in a peer mentorship program for nine (9) months and until he has successfully completed this program to the satisfaction of the Registrar.

The terms and conditions are intended to be educational, remedial and in the interests of public protection. They are intended to ensure public protection by preventing Dr. Lindal from engaging in any supervision for a period of six months and thereafter to engage in mentorship until his skills have been remediated and the College is confident that he is able to supervise appropriately. It will also address concerns about his records and record-keeping until such time as the completion of his mentorship is approved by the Registrar.

The Panel considered the penalty appropriate in terms of its severity for the following reasons:

1. Dr. Lindal agreed to the terms and conditions on his certificate of registration, which addresses those areas in which he had practiced below the professional standard.

2. There is a mechanism in place for monitoring his supervision and retention of records, and ensuring his readiness to supervise effectively and appropriately.

3. By admitting his misconduct, Dr. Lindal allowed for the immediate implementation of the order which addresses our concern for public protection.

REPRIMAND

Dr. Lindal waived his right of appeal and the oral reprimand was delivered to Dr. Lindal immediately following the hearing on September 27, 2017.

Dated this 21st day of October, 2017

“Lynette Eulette” (Chair) Dr. Lynette Eulette C.Psych.

“Allyson Harrison” Dr. Allyson Harrison C.Psych.

“Maggie Mamen” Dr. Maggie Mamen C.Psych.

“Donna McNicol” Ms. Donna McNicol

“Ethel Teitelbaum” Ms. Ethel Teitelbaum