Health Law - OCPDT

The registrant was found to have committed professional misconduct by sexually abusing a patient through sexual comments and engaging in disgraceful, dishonourable, or unprofessional conduct by being untruthful to the patient and misleading in clinical records.

At the penalty hearing, the Tribunal ordered a reprimand, an eight-month suspension, completion of an ethics course, and a period of supervision.

The Tribunal also ordered the registrant to pay $60,000 in costs to the College, rejecting the College's request for $100,000 due to divided success on the allegations.

The College of Chiropodists of Ontario brought professional misconduct allegations against the registrant for prescribing orthotics without adequate assessment, failing to maintain proper records, and engaging in rude and discourteous behaviour towards a patient and an insurance representative.

The registrant admitted the allegations and undertook to permanently resign her certificate of registration.

The Discipline Tribunal accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering a reprimand and $29,000 in costs.

The College alleged that the registrant, a chiropodist, engaged in sexual abuse and professional misconduct during a patient appointment.

The Tribunal found that the registrant sexually abused the patient by making inappropriate sexual comments about blow jobs and escorts during a shockwave therapy treatment.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the allegation of sexual touching, finding the physical contact was clinically appropriate for treating Achilles pain.

The Tribunal also found the registrant engaged in disgraceful, dishonourable, or unprofessional conduct by lying to the patient about a non-existent upper management addressing her complaint and by creating misleading clinical records suggesting she would return for further treatment.

The College of Chiropodists of Ontario alleged that the registrant committed professional misconduct regarding his relationship with an orthotics manufacturer and his orthotics prescribing practices.

The registrant brought a preliminary motion arguing the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to hear the prescribing allegations because they were outside the scope of the registrar's authorized investigation and not related to the investigation report.

The Tribunal granted the motion, finding that the prescribing allegations were fundamentally different from the conflict of interest concerns that prompted the investigation.

Because the new issues were not authorized by a new appointment and the registrant was not given an opportunity to respond to them in the report, the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee had no jurisdiction to refer them to the Tribunal.

The registrant, a chiropodist, was found to have committed professional misconduct by failing to keep proper records, failing to conduct adequate assessments before prescribing orthotics, allowing non-registrants to dispense orthotics, and failing to guard against fraudulent billing practices at clinics where she worked.

The Tribunal accepted a joint submission on penalty, noting the registrant's serious health issues as a mitigating factor.

The penalty included a seven-month suspension (with three months remitted upon completion of a record-keeping course), a reprimand, 18 months of practice supervision, and $20,000 in costs.

The registrant admitted to professional misconduct for validating insurance claims for orthotics dispensed by clinic staff and non-registrants, falsifying patient records, and providing false information to an insurance company.

Prior to the hearing, the registrant undertook to permanently resign from the College and never reapply.

The Discipline Tribunal accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering a reprimand and $8,000 in costs, finding that the permanent resignation adequately protected the public and the penalty did not bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The registrant chiropodist brought a motion for the production of records and communications related to the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (ICRC) meetings that resulted in the referral of professional misconduct allegations against him.

He argued the disclosure was necessary to support an intended motion to quash the Notice of Hearing based on lack of notice and jurisdiction.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the requested documents, including notes and staff recommendations, were protected by deliberative privilege.

The Tribunal further held that the registrant failed to provide evidence to lift the privilege and that the requested documents were not relevant to his intended arguments regarding notice and jurisdiction.

The registrant, a chiropodist, faced allegations of professional misconduct for failing to properly supervise students, permitting them to treat patients and dispense orthotics contrary to College standards, and submitting inaccurate documentation to an insurance company.

The matter proceeded on an Agreed Statement of Facts and a Joint Submission on Penalty.

The Tribunal found the registrant engaged in professional misconduct and ordered a reprimand, a seven-month suspension (with two months remitted upon completion of remedial work), practice restrictions, supervision, and $20,000 in costs.

The registrant, a chiropodist, admitted to professional misconduct for posting messages in a private Facebook group that discouraged colleagues from reporting misconduct to the College, and for failing to cooperate with a College investigator for nearly three months.

The Discipline Tribunal found that the Facebook posts constituted a failure to meet professional standards and were disgraceful, dishonourable, or unprofessional.

The Tribunal accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering a reprimand, a three-month suspension, completion of a social media course, mentorship, and $25,000 in costs.

The College of Chiropodists of Ontario alleged that the registrant engaged in professional misconduct by over-prescribing orthotics, failing to keep adequate records, and participating in improper clinic business practices, including providing incentives for orthotics purchases.

Proceeding on an Agreed Statement of Facts, the Tribunal found the registrant committed professional misconduct.

Accepting a Joint Submission on Penalty, the Tribunal ordered a seven-month suspension (with two months remitted upon completion of remedial courses), a reprimand, a six-month restriction on prescribing orthotics, a 12-month period of supervision, and $14,000 in costs.

The registrant admitted to professional misconduct for failing to meet practice standards and keep adequate records when prescribing orthotics.

The College and the registrant presented a joint submission on penalty, which included a net four-month suspension, coursework, practice supervision, and a reprimand.

The Tribunal accepted the joint submission, finding that the proposed penalty was proportionate to similar cases and did not bring the administration of the professional discipline system into disrepute.

The registrant was also ordered to pay $23,000 in costs.

The College of Chiropodists of Ontario alleged that the registrant committed professional misconduct by misdiagnosing a patient's melanoma as a nail fungus, performing unnecessary nail avulsion surgery, and failing to refer the patient to a physician.

The patient subsequently required amputation of his right toe.

Proceeding on an Agreed Statement of Facts, the Tribunal found the registrant engaged in professional misconduct.

The Tribunal accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering a nine-month suspension, a reprimand, remedial coursework, mentorship, and costs of $24,000.

The College of Chiropodists of Ontario alleged that the registrant committed professional misconduct by participating in an arrangement where patients received free shoes if they purchased orthotics.

The registrant admitted to failing to perform complete assessments, using improper casting techniques, and submitting false or misleading records to an insurance company.

Proceeding on an Agreed Statement of Facts and Joint Submission on Penalty, the Discipline Tribunal found the misconduct proven.

The Tribunal accepted the joint submission and ordered a reprimand, a 10-month suspension, practice restrictions, and $10,000 in costs.

The registrant, a podiatrist, admitted to professional misconduct for failing to disclose a civil lawsuit against him on his annual College renewal forms.

He resigned from the College and undertook never to reapply or practise in any jurisdiction.

The Discipline Tribunal accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering a reprimand and $13,500 in costs, finding the proposed penalty was not contrary to the public interest.

The Member faced allegations of professional misconduct related to providing inappropriate incentives (shoe credits) to patients for purchasing orthotics, submitting misleading insurance claims, and failing to maintain adequate patient records.

The Member admitted to the allegations and agreed to a joint submission on penalty.

The Discipline Committee accepted the joint submission, finding the Member engaged in professional misconduct.

The Committee ordered a reprimand, an 8-month suspension (with 2 months remitted upon completing ethics and records courses), practice restrictions, supervision, and $9,000 in costs.

The Member, a registered chiropodist, faced allegations of professional misconduct related to the prescribing and dispensing of custom orthotics and orthopaedic footwear, primarily involving claims submitted to Green Shield Canada.

The Member admitted to failing to meet standards of practice, practicing in a conflict of interest, failing to keep proper records, and signing misleading documents.

The Discipline Committee accepted an Agreed Statement of Facts and a Joint Submission on Penalty, finding the Member guilty of professional misconduct.

The Committee ordered an oral reprimand, a seven-month suspension (with two months remitted upon completion of ethics and record-keeping courses), practice restrictions, supervision, and costs of $25,000.

The member, a registered chiropodist, admitted to professional misconduct for offering free shoes with the purchase of orthotics, failing to keep adequate records, and practising in a conflict of interest.

The Discipline Committee accepted an Agreed Statement of Facts and found the member committed professional misconduct.

The Committee also accepted a Joint Submission on Penalty and Costs, ordering an oral reprimand, an eight-month suspension (with two months remitted upon completing ethics and records courses), practice restrictions, supervision, and $10,000 in costs.

The College of Chiropodists of Ontario brought a motion to stay allegations of professional misconduct against the member and indefinitely adjourn the hearing.

The member consented to the order, having signed an Undertaking and Acknowledgement to permanently resign his registration, never re-apply, and pay $8,000 in costs.

The Discipline Committee granted the motion, finding that the resolution protected the public interest, served public transparency, and avoided the costs of a full hearing.

The Member faced allegations of professional misconduct related to his involvement in a multi-million dollar insurance fraud scheme at a clinic.

The Member admitted to overprescribing orthotics and orthopaedic shoes without proper assessment, failing to maintain adequate patient records, and submitting false or misleading invoices to insurers.

The Discipline Committee accepted an Agreed Statement of Facts and found the Member committed professional misconduct.

Accepting a joint submission on penalty, the Committee ordered the revocation of the Member's certificate of registration, an oral reprimand, and $15,000 in costs.

The College of Chiropodists of Ontario brought disciplinary proceedings against the Member for professional misconduct, including failing to keep adequate records, failing to perform patient assessments, and submitting false or misleading insurance claims to Great West Life for orthotics and orthopedic shoes.

The Member admitted to the allegations and entered into an Agreed Statement of Facts.

The Discipline Committee found the Member guilty of professional misconduct.

Accepting a joint submission on penalty, the Committee ordered a seven-month suspension (with two months remitted upon completion of an ethics course), a two-year period of practice supervision, a reprimand, and $15,000 in costs.