ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
MACFARLAND, JENNINGS AND HOWDEN JJ.
B E T W E E N:
SLAVTCHO PETROV DETCHEV
Applicant
- and -
THE HEALTH PROFESSIONS APPEAL AND REVIEW BOARD, THE COLLEGE OF PHYSICIANS AND SURGEONS OF ONTARIO, DR. JACOB LOEB STEIN, M.D., DR. JAMES ALEXANDER GORMAN M.D. and DR. BERNARD WOOLFORD M.D.
Respondents
In Person
Dean C. Novak, for the Respondents, Dr. Jacob Loeb Stein, Dr. James Alexander Gorman and Dr. Bernard Woolford
David Jacobs, for the Respondent, The Health Professional Appeal and Review Board
HEARD: June 10, 2004
MACFARLAND J.: (Orally)
1Mr. Detchev will not be convinced by the persuasive opinions of the medical professionals involved in his care in 1999 through 2001, that his condition, spondylolysis and spondylolisthesis results from a congenital abnormality and was not caused by his work situation.
2All of the physicians against whom complaints were made were of the same opinion. There is no professional opinion to the contrary in the voluminous record before us. Mr. Detchev relies on medical dictionary definitions and an article he obtained from the website Medical Multimedia Group to support his own theory that his condition is work related and not congenital.
3It is this difference of opinion that provides the basis for his complaints. In relation to the Gorman complaint, in careful reasons of twelve pages, the Board considered Mr. Detchev’s complaint, reviewed the evidentiary record and confirmed the Committee’s decision. In our view, the decision is a reasonable one and there is no basis for this Court to interfere.
4In respect to the Woolford complaint, again, the Board concluded that the Committee’s decision was a reasonable one and in particular, approved of its determination that “this was an exercise of Dr. Woolford’s medical judgment in interpreting the medical evidence before him. We cannot conclude that Dr. Woolford erred in his interpretation of the available evidence.” We agree with the Board and find no reviewable error in its decision.
5As to the Stein complaint, the Complaints Committee reviewed Mr. Detchev’s complaint and determined, pursuant to its authority under s.30(2) of the Health Professionals Procedure Code, Schedule 2 to the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991, to take no action in relation thereto.
6In its Notice of Proposal, dated July 22, 2003, the Board noted:
“The Committee evidently took notice of certain information in its possession which it considered to be relevant to the matter. It is neither unreasonable for the Committee to have done so, nor was the information conveyed to anyone other than the parties to Mr. Detchev’s complaint. This could hardly be considered a violation of confidentiality.
The Committee, having found the complaint to be frivolous and vexatious for reasons clearly expressed, was under no obligation to proceed with an investigation of the matter or to provide any particular comment regarding any particular imaging reports.”
7The Board, after reviewing Mr. Detchev’s letter of response and attachment, concluded that the Committee’s decision was appropriate in all of the circumstances. We agree with the Board’s decision and find it to have been reasonable in all of the circumstances and the applications for judicial review are dismissed.
8We have completed the endorsement on the application records in each case: “For oral reasons given this day the application is dismissed. The Board does not seek costs and none are awarded. Costs to the respondent physician fixed in the sum of $2,500.00.”
MACFARLAND J.
JENNINGS J.
HOWDEN J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: June 10, 2004
Date of Release: June 30, 2004
COURT FILE NO.: 581/03; 594/03 and 603/03
DATE: 20040610
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
MACFARLAND, JENNINGS AND HOWDEN JJ.
B E T W E E N:
SLAVTCHO PETROV DETCHEV
Applicant
- and -
THE HEALTH PROFESSIONS APPEAL AND REVIEW BOARD, THE COLLEGE OF PHYSICIANS AND SURGEONS OF ONTARIO, DR. JACOB LOEB STEIN, M.D., DR. JAMES ALEXANDER GORMAN M.D. and DR. BERNARD WOOLFORD M.D.
Respondents
ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
MACFARLAND J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: June 10, 2004
Date of Release: June 30, 2004