RCDSO 2019

In a professional discipline hearing, the member admitted allegations involving sexual impropriety with a patient who was also an employee, and longstanding sexual harassment and degrading conduct toward staff in a dental practice.

The panel found professional misconduct proven on the member’s admissions and the agreed statement of facts.

Applying the public-interest standard governing joint submissions on sanction, the panel accepted a joint submission for reprimand, immediate revocation of the certificate of registration, and $10,000 in costs.

The panel held that revocation was necessary for public protection, denunciation, deterrence, and maintenance of public confidence in the profession.

In a professional discipline hearing, the panel accepted the member’s admissions to multiple allegations arising from complex implant treatment, consent failures, disclosure of patient information, deficient records, and breach of a remediation and mentorship program.

The admitted facts included lengthy surgery on an elderly patient, treatment-planning inconsistencies, undocumented changes in implant number and prosthetic materials, inadequate informed consent, unauthorized distribution of patient photographs, and failure to follow a mentor’s recommendations in two implant cases.

The panel found all misconduct allegations proven and accepted a joint submission on penalty.

The sanction imposed a six-month suspension, reprimand, extensive remedial terms and monitoring, and costs of $10,000.

A dental discipline panel found professional misconduct where the registrant planned and performed unnecessary oral surgery on a minor under general anaesthesia after reviewing another patient's CBCT scan and failing to review the patient chart.

The panel also found that informed consent was not obtained because the discussion of the procedure was insufficient, the written consent referred to the wrong tooth, and consent was not re-confirmed on the day of surgery.

Accepting a joint submission, the panel ordered a reprimand, completion of an informed-consent course, practice monitoring, and costs.

A publication ban protected the identity of patients named in the notice of hearing and agreed statement of facts.

In a dental discipline proceeding, the member admitted professional misconduct arising from deficient recordkeeping and improper use of billing codes that resulted in insurance claims and related documents containing improper statements for multiple patients.

The tribunal accepted an agreed statement of facts and found the misconduct proven under s. 51(1)(c) of the Health Professions Procedural Code and paragraph 28 of section 2 of Ontario Regulation 853.

Applying the joint penalty submission, the tribunal imposed a reprimand, mandatory remedial courses in recordkeeping and billing, practice monitoring for twenty-four months after course completion, and costs.

A publication restriction protecting patient identities was also ordered under s. 45(3).

In a professional discipline hearing, the panel found professional misconduct where the member failed to comply with a prior Discipline Committee order requiring an unconditional pass in an ethics remediation program.

The member admitted the allegation, and the College withdrew a separate governability-related allegation.

The panel accepted a joint submission on penalty and costs, holding that the proposed sanction was within the appropriate range and consistent with the public interest.

The order imposed a reprimand, mentorship as a term on the certificate of registration, and costs of $2,500.

Following liability findings for multiple forms of professional misconduct in dental practice, the discipline panel addressed penalty and costs on an uncontested joint submission.

The misconduct included unnecessary dental services, false or misleading documentation and claims, excessive or unreasonable fees, failure to collect co-payments properly, deficient records, and misconduct tied to financial benefit.

The panel accepted a joint submission imposing a reprimand, a 12-month suspension, extensive suspension and practice conditions, remedial coursework, and monitoring.

The panel held that the proposed sanction was fair and reasonable, served specific and general deterrence, protected the public, and supported rehabilitation.

Costs of $200,000 were also ordered, representing approximately one third of the College’s hearing costs.

A discipline panel accepted the member's admissions to professional misconduct arising from extensive recordkeeping deficiencies and improper billing practices over several years.

The misconduct included illegible crossed-out entries, use of pencil and white-out in records, failure to retain insurance claims, delayed insurance billing using false service dates, and an inappropriate claim for a bridge where implant treatment had been provided.

Applying the public-interest standard for joint submissions, the panel accepted a jointly proposed penalty consisting of a reprimand, remedial education, 24 months of practice monitoring, and costs.

The panel emphasized rehabilitation, specific and general deterrence, and public protection, while treating the guilty plea, remorse, restitution, and prior remediation as mitigating factors.

A professional discipline panel found that the member committed professional misconduct arising from a systemic pattern of unnecessary radiographs, false and misleading insurance billings, billing for services not performed, charging excessive or unreasonable fees, failing to collect co-payments, and failing to provide complete patient records to the regulator.

Applying the civil standard of proof from F.H. v McDougall, the panel relied heavily on documentary records and found the billing discrepancies too numerous and persistent to be explained as innocent clerical mistakes.

The panel rejected the position that responsibility for billing errors could be delegated to staff, holding the clinic owner responsible for the conduct of the office and the claims submitted under his name.

The publication restriction protecting patient identities remained in force.