Ontario (College of Psychologists of Ontario) v. Baskakova, 2019 ONCPD 1
Indexed as: Ontario (College of Psychologists of Ontario) v. Baskakova, 2019 ONCPD 1
DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE COLLEGE OF PSYCHOLOGISTS OF ONTARIO
IN THE MATTER OF
The Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991, S.O. 1991, c.18
And the Psychology Act, 1991, S.O. 1991, c.38
Between:
The College of Psychologists of Ontario
-and-
Elena Baskakova, Dipl.Psych., C.Psych.Assoc.
DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION
Panel Members:
Dr. Michael Grand Chair (Professional Member of Council)
Ms. Kristin Bisbee Member (Public Appointee)
Dr. Maggie Mamen Member (Professional Member)
Dr. Denise Milovan Member (Professional Member)
Mr. Cory Richman Member (Public Appointee)
Hearing Date: February 27, 2019
Decision Date: February 27, 2019
Release of Written Reasons: March 20, 2019
COUNSEL:
Jennifer McKendry, Counsel to the College of Psychologists of Ontario
Andrew McKenna, Counsel for the Member
Ian Roland, Counsel to the Discipline Committee of the College of Psychologists of Ontario
INTRODUCTION
- Pursuant to the Health Professions Procedural Code (the “Code”), as amended, the Panel of the Discipline Committee of the College of Psychologists of Ontario (the “Panel”) held a hearing on February 27, 2019, to hear and determine specific allegation of professional misconduct against Ms. Elena Baskakova, as outlined in the Notice of Hearing, dated, December 19, 2017.
PRELIMINARY ORDER
- Counsel for the College requested that the Panel order a publication ban with respect to the names of the complainant and Ms. Baskakova’s staff, pursuant to subsection 45(3) of the Code. There was no objection to this request, and a publication ban was ordered. The complainant, a client of Ms. Baskakova’s, will hereafter be referred to as Mr. X, and the staff member in Ms. Baskakova’s practice will hereafter be referred to as Mr. Y.
ALLEGATIONS SET OUT IN THE NOTICE OF HEARING
- The allegations in the Notice of Hearing, are as follows:
IT IS ALLEGED that you are 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 RELEVANT PARTICULARS OF THE ALLEGATIONS are as follows:
3.1 You 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 O. Reg. 801/93.
3.2 You failed to keep records as required by the regulations, contrary to Section 1, paragraph 19 of O. Reg 801/93.
3.3 You failed to supervise adequately a person who was under your professional responsibility and who was providing a psychological service, contrary to section 1, paragraph 5 of O. Reg. 801/93.
3.4 You failed to maintain the standards of the profession, contrary to Section 1, paragraph 2 of O. Reg 801/93. In particular, you failed to maintain principles:
2.1 (General Conduct);
3.1.1. (Responsibility for Psychological Services);
- (Supervision); and
9.2, 9.5. (Records and Record Keeping).
By way of further particulars, it is alleged that:
3.5 As the partner/owner of Gladshteyn & Baskakova, you assumed responsibility for the planning, delivery, supervision, and billing of all the psychological services to be provided to Mr. X.
3.6 The services that Mr. Y. provided to Mr. X were provided under your supervision and/or oversight.
3.7 You failed to ensure the services provided to Mr. X. by Mr. Y. were provided properly, under supervision of a duly authorized member of the College.
3.8 You failed to ensure that the clinical records and billing records maintained in respect of Mr. X. were in accordance with the regulations and standards of the profession.
AGREED STATEMENT OF FACTS
- Counsel for the College submitted an Agreed Statement of Facts with respect to the above allegations. It reads as follows:
4.1. Ms. Baskakova is a member of the College of Psychologists of Ontario. Since 2013 she has worked as a Psychological Associate. Ms. Baskakova is an owner of Gladshteyn & Baskakova, Psychology Professional Corporation (the “Corporation”), which offers psychological services including assessments and treatment for individuals involved in motor vehicle accidents.
4.2. Mr. X was injured in a motor vehicle accident on January 5, 2012. He sought
assistance in his rehabilitation through his insurer. An assessment was conducted by Gladshteyn & Baskakova employees, and 8-10 psychotherapy sessions were
recommended. The sessions were intended to assist Mr. X in reducing his anxiety level and depressive symptomatology in order to assist in restoring him to pre-accident levels of functioning.
4.3. These psychotherapy sessions were arranged through Gladshteyn & Baskakova, to be provided by Mr. Y. Mr. Y is a psychotherapist employed by Gladshteyn &
Baskakova.
4.4 Ms. Baskakova had no interaction with, and never met, Mr. X.
4.5. Gladshteyn & Baskakova submitted invoices for psychotherapy services to Mr. X on five dates: September 16 and 23, and October 1, 7, and 15, 2013. Mr. X denies that these psychotherapy services were provided to him by Mr. Y, or any employee of Gladshteyn & Baskakova.
4.6. Ms. Baskakova admits that she was mistaken in her belief that Mr. Y. was being
supervised by another psychologist or psychological associate for the provision of these services.
4.7. Gladshteyn & Baskakova received weekly reports from Mr. Y. regarding the services he purportedly provided. Despite the fact that Ms. Baskakova did not review all of the documentation in relation to the services purportedly provided, Gladshteyn & Baskakova submitted invoices for psychological services rendered to Mr. X. Accordingly, Ms. Baskakova failed to ensure that the clinical records and billing records maintained in respect of Mr. X. were in accordance with the regulations and standards of the profession.
4.8. As an owner of Gladshteyn & Baskakova, Ms. Baskakova assumed responsibility for the planning, delivery, supervision and billing of all the psychological services to be provided to Mr. X.
4.9 Despite this, Ms. Baskakova failed to ensure the services provided to Mr. X. by Mr. Y. were provided properly, under the supervision of a duly authorized member of the College.
4.10 Ms. Baskakova acknowledges that, in the circumstances, she is guilty of professional misconduct by failing to supervise adequately Mr. Y., who was under her professional responsibility and who was providing a psychological service, contrary to s. 1, paragraph 5 of O. Reg. 801/93. In particular, Ms. Baskakova admits that she failed to maintain Standard 4 (Supervision) of the Standards of Professional Conduct, 2005 (Revised 2009).
4.11 Ms. Baskakova admits that she failed to keep records as required by the regulations, contrary to s. 1, paragraph 19 of O. Reg. 801/93 and that she failed to maintain the standards of the profession contrary to s. 1, paragraph 2 of O. Reg. 801/93 by failing to maintain principles 9.2 and 9.5 (Records and Record Keeping).
4.12 Ms. Baskakova admits that she has engaged in conduct in the course of practicing the profession, that, having regard to all the circumstances, would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonorable or unprofessional, contrary to Section 1, paragraph 34, of O. Reg. 801/93.
THE DECISION
- The Panel accepted Ms. Baskakova’s admission of professional misconduct and found her 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. In particular, based upon the agreed facts, she failed to maintain the following standards of the Standards of Professional Conduct (Revised March 27, 2009):
5.1 Contrary to Section 1, paragraph 34 of O. Reg. 801/93, Ms. Baskakova 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,
5.2 Contrary to Section 1, paragraph 19 of O. Reg 801/93, Ms. Baskakova failed to keep records as required by the regulations.
5.3 Contrary to section 1, paragraph 5 of O. Reg. 801/93, Ms. Baskakova failed to supervise adequately a person who was under her professional responsibility and who was providing a psychological service.
5.4 Contrary to Section 1, paragraph 2 of O. Reg 801/93, Ms. Baskakova failed to maintain the standards of the profession. In particular, she failed to maintain principles:
2.1 (General Conduct);
3.1.1. (Responsibility for Psychological Services);
- (Supervision); and
9.2, 9.5. (Records and Record Keeping).
DECISION ON PENALTY
The parties submitted a joint submission on penalty in the form of a draft Order.
The Panel unanimously accepted the joint submission in respect of penalty made by counsel for the College of Psychologists of Ontario and the counsel for Ms. Baskakova. The Panel believes that the penalty and the reprimand are sufficient to communicate our concerns to Ms. Baskakova. Furthermore, in determining the penalty, the Panel considered the fact that Ms. Baskakova agreed to a statement of facts, took responsibility for her actions by pleading guilty, and participated in a joint submission on penalty.
Our Order reads as follows:
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
8.1. Immediately following the Discipline hearing, having waived the right to appeal, Ms. Elena Baskakova shall appear before the Discipline Committee to be reprimanded and the fact of the reprimand shall be recorded on the College’s Register;
8.2. Ms. Baskakova shall enter into an Undertaking requiring her to complete a 12 month period of individualized coaching, significant content of which will be directed to reviewing appropriate business practices, responsibility for the delivery of business services, and record keeping. The coach shall be pre-approved by the College, and the coaching program shall comprise a minimum of six one-hour, in-person meetings, once per month for the first three months, and thereafter monthly or bi-monthly, if the coach feels it is appropriate to reduce the frequency of meetings at that point.
8.3. The coach shall submit written reports to the College on at least a quarterly basis
commencing after the third month.
8.4. All costs associated with the completion of the above-noted penalty elements shall be paid by the member.
REASONS FOR DECISION ON PENALTY
- The Reprimand
The reprimand is meant to emphasize to Ms. Baskakova, the seriousness of her actions that have led this Panel to determine that she has engaged in professional misconduct. It highlights the impact of her misconduct, in that she failed to adequately supervise psychological services provided by an individual who was not registered with the College of Psychologists of Ontario, thus putting the public at risk. She also failed to ensure that proper records were maintained, thus putting quality assurance into jeopardy. The reprimand will be submitted in full to the Register. This will allow the public to know how the Panel has reprimanded the member, thereby instilling greater confidence in the process of self-regulation.
- Individualized Coaching
Ms. Baskakova clearly failed to recognize the need for appropriate supervision of a non-registered practitioner and the importance of maintain professional records of all psychological services and supervision thereof. The purpose of the 12 months of individualized coaching is to ensure that Ms. Baskakova understands and engages in supervision and record keeping that meets the standards of the profession, thus lessening the possibility that she will make such mistakes in the future.
- Cost of Coaching
Ms. Baskakova will bear the full cost of the coaching. These expenses are one of the consequences for members who are found to require remediation as a result of professional misconduct. It is expected that this financial expense will lessen the possibility that, in the future, she will repeat the mistakes that have led to a finding of professional misconduct.
- The Panel considers the above penalty appropriate for the following reasons:
12.1 There have been no prior discipline findings against Ms. Baskakova.
12.2 Ms. Baskakova was cooperative with the College investigation to the extent that she pleaded guilty, indicated remorse and, in doing so, saved the College the time and expense of a contested hearing.
12.3 Ms. Baskakova participated with the College in producing an agreed statement of facts and an agreed penalty, and she has accepted personal and financial responsibility for her actions.
12.4 The penalty ensures a mechanism is in place to monitor Ms. Baskakova's professional development over the course of the 12 months of individualized coaching. This is designed to maintain the integrity of self-regulation and to ensure that the public is protected in that, with these measures, Ms. Baskakova will be much less likely to repeat her misconduct.
12.5 The decision on penalty serves as a general deterrent to the profession. It also provides a specific caution to those professional members who supervise non-registered practitioners to ensure that they meet the professional standards for supervision and record keeping.
Dated this 27th day of February, 2019
“Michael Grand” (Chair) Dr. Michael Grand, C.Psych.
“Kristin Bisbee” Ms. Kristin Bisbee (Public Member)
“Maggie Mamen” Dr. Maggie Mamen, C.Psych.
“Denise Milovan” Dr. Denise Milovan, C.Psych.
“Cory Richman” Mr. Cory Richman (Public Member)
TEXT OF REPRIMAND DELIVERED TO MS. BASKAKOVA
Ms Baskakova, you are here today in front of this panel of the College of Psychologists of
Ontario, Discipline Committee to be reprimanded on your conduct as a Psychological Associate with respect to the allegations to which you pleaded guilty. We trust that you understand the seriousness of your behaviour. You have engaged in practices that would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional. You failed to keep records as required by the regulations. You also failed to supervise adequately a person who was under your professional responsibility. This person was providing a psychological service, yet was not monitored appropriately by you. Overall, you failed to maintain several standards of the profession.
Our profession has a responsibility to provide services to the public that meet clearly articulated standards of conduct. When a non-registered practitioner offers a psychological service, the public must be assured that the service received adheres to the standards upheld by the profession. You failed to do this.
The absence of adequate records also puts the public at risk as the means to assess the services offered are not part of the record. As a profession, we must be accountable to the public. Consequently, record keeping is a mandatory act for which all practitioners must be held accountable.
Your behaviour reflects poorly on all members of our profession. When clients come to us, they have the right to expect services that meet professional standards of conduct at all times. Your actions were contrary to this expectation.
We trust that you have learned from this experience, and have already made important, substantive changes to your practice of Psychology.
This is not an official transcript