Ontario (College of Psychologists of Ontario) v. Schmidt, 2021 ONCPD 2

Ontario (College of Psychologists of Ontario) v. Schmidt, 2021 ONCPD 2

Indexed as: Ontario (College of Psychologists of Ontario) v. Schmidt, 2021 ONCPD 2

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 -

Dr. Darren Schmidt

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION

Panel Members: Dr. Lynette Eulette, Chair, Professional Member Dr. Marilyn Keyes, Council Member Dr. Janice Currie, Professional Member Ms. Nancy Tkachuk, Public Member Mr. Scott Warnock, Public Member

Hearing Date: August 25, 2021 Decision Date: August 25, 2021 Release of Written Reasons: August 28, 2021

Counsel: Robin McKechney, Counsel to the College of Psychologists of Ontario Lorne Honickman, Counsel for the Member Ian Roland, Counsel to the Discipline Committee of the College of Psychologists of Ontario

DECISION WITH RESPECT TO PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT AND REASONS FOR DECISION

[1]. Pursuant to the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991 (the “RHPA”) and the Health Professions Procedural Code, as amended, a Panel of the Discipline Committee of the College of Psychologists (the “Panel”) held a virtual hearing on August 25, 2021, to hear and determine specific allegations of professional misconduct against Dr. Darren Schmidt, as noted in the Notice of Hearing dated July 27, 2020.

PRELIMINARY MATTERS

[2]. Upon the request of counsel for the College, without objection by the member or his counsel, the Panel ordered that the name of Dr. Schmidt’s client not be published or broadcast, pursuant to subsection 3 of section 45 of the Health Professions Procedural Code.

ALLEGATIONS

[3]. The allegations against Dr. Schmidt set out in the Notice of Hearing as 1b, 1c, 2, 3, 4a-f were withdrawn by agreement of the parties. The remaining allegation, set out at 1a of the Notice of Hearing is as follows:

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 principle 2.1 (General Conduct).

The relevant further particulars set out in the Notice of Hearing are as follows:

By way of further particulars, it is alleged that:

(a) On or about May 30, 2018, you received a referral from a third-party assessment company to perform an Independent Medical Examination of Ms. LC in the context of determining her access to disability benefits.

(b) You assessed Ms. LC in Kanata, Ontario, on June 12 and June 17, 2018, and produced a report from the assessment on July 19, 2018. As part of your psychological and neuropsychological assessment, you reviewed Ms. C’s medical records, performed a clinical interview, and administered a battery of tests.

(d) Your report was internally inconsistent and contained numerous factual errors regarding verifiable and documented aspects of Ms. LC’s biographical data, psychological and medical treatments, and work history.

[4]. At the hearing, Dr. Schmidt admitted to this single allegation of professional misconduct.

AGREED STATEMENT OF FACTS

[5]. The parties submitted an Agreed Statement of Facts into evidence at the hearing. It states:

1. Dr. Schmidt is a member of the College of Psychologists of Ontario. He is authorized to practice clinical psychology and clinical neuropsychology in relation to adolescents and adults.

2. On or around May 30, 2018, Dr. Schmidt received a referral from a third party assessment company to perform an Independent Medical Examination of Ms. LC in the context of determining her access to disability benefits.

3. Ms. LC was assessed on June 12 and June 27, 2018. Dr. Schmidt produced a report from the assessment on July 19, 2018. As part of the psychological and neuropsychological assessment, Dr. Schmidt was provided medical records, performed a clinical interview and administered a battery of tests.

4. Dr. Schmidt’s report contained internal inconsistencies and factual errors regarding verifiable and documented aspects of Ms. LC’s biographical data, psychological and medical treatments and work history. Additionally, spelling errors, grammatical errors and unclear writing contributed to a report that appears difficult to read at times.

5. It is jointly submitted that in light of the above, Dr. Schmidt engaged in the following professional misconduct:

(a) Dr. Schmidt failed to maintain the standards of the profession with respect to services rendered to Ms. LC, in particular standard 2.1 (General Conduct).

[6]. Based upon the admission by Dr. Schmidt to the allegation of professional misconduct and the Agreed Statement of Facts, the Discipline Committee Panel found Dr. Schmidt guilty of professional misconduct.

[7]. Not every error, or any single error in a report necessarily amounts to professional misconduct because it necessarily renders the report one that falls below the standards of practice. However, multiple and significant errors coupled with unclear writing and spelling and grammatical errors may have the cumulative effect of rendering the report below the standard of practice expected of the profession with regard to report writing, especially when the report may have significant consequences for the client. This is such a case.

PENALTY AND REASONS FOR PENALTY

[8]. The parties submitted a joint submission on penalty in the form of a draft Order.

[9]. After hearing submissions from counsel for the College and counsel for Dr. Schmidt, the Panel accepted the joint submission on penalty.

PENALTY:

[10]. The following terms, conditions and limitation will be entered on Dr. Schmidt Certificate of Registration:

1. For a period of nine (9) months, Dr. Schmidt will cease accepting and performing clinical assessments (“Assessments”), including but not limited to: psychological, neurocognitive, neuropsychological and catastrophic assessments, except under the following conditions:

a. Dr. Schmidt will only conduct Assessments under the guidance and support of his current Peer Supervisor, Dr. Diana Garcia (“Peer Supervisor”);

b. Prior to starting an Assessment, Dr. Schmidt will consult with the Peer Supervisor in order to discuss the case and review the Assessment plan, including the list of documents to review, the chosen test battery, and proposed interview structure for the Assessment;

c. The Peer Supervisor will review and co-sign all reports that Dr. Schmidt produces from completed Assessments.

2. Dr. Schmidt will notify clients that their files will be reviewed by the Peer Supervisor for the purposes of quality assurance/improvement.

3. The Peer Supervisor shall be provided with the decision and reasons of the Discipline Panel for the discipline hearing held on August 25, 2021. The College may also provide the Peer Supervisor with any other relevant previous conduct history.

4. The Peer Supervisor shall provide the Registrar with a report every three months briefly summarizing the supervisory activities and updating the Registrar with regard to Dr. Schmidt’s progress in relation to performing Assessments.

5. In addition to the reports referred to in paragraph four, the Peer Supervisor may contact the Registrar or the Registrar’s designate, and the Registrar or the Registrar’s designate may contact the Peer Supervisor at any time to discuss any matter relevant to the Peer Supervisor’s duties.

6. Dr. Schmidt shall be solely responsible for payment of all costs associate with the Peer Supervisor.

7. Any variation of the above terms, conditions and limitations will only be made on approval of the Registrar, such approval not to be unreasonably withheld.

REASONS FOR PENALTY:

[11]. The Panel considered that Dr. Schmidt’s report which contained internal inconsistencies and errors regarding verifiable and documented facts fell below the College’s standards of practice. The cumulative fact of this poorly written report and the importance of this type of report to the client can result in real and significant life consequences.

[12]. Dr. Schmidt’s conduct also reflected poorly on the profession. The Panel concluded that the penalty expresses the seriousness of Dr. Schmidt’s misconduct and affords him the opportunity to continue his professional career provided he take the necessary remedial steps. It seemed most appropriate for the order to be remedial in nature rather than punitive.

[13]. With regards to specific deterrents, this order requires that Dr. Schmidt be involved in a process of mentorship and supervision which provides a method of remediation ensuring that the public is protected. Further, the publication of the hearing and order acts as a general deterrent for members of the profession.

[14]. In accepting the joint penalty, the Panel recognized that Dr. Schmidt co-operated with the College and, in so doing, saved the parties several days of time and expense inherent in a contested hearing.

[15]. By agreement of the parties, Dr. Schmidt is ordered to pay Discipline Hearing costs in the amount of $3,500, within 90 days of the date of the Order of the Discipline Committee which is dated August 25, 2021.

Dated this 25th day of August, 2021

“Lynette Eulette” (Chair) [Dr. Lynette Eulette]

“Marilyn Keyes” Dr. Marilyn Keyes

“Janice Currie” Dr. Janice Currie

“Nancy Tkachuk” Ms. Nancy Tkachuk

“Scott Warnock” Mr. Scott Warnock