discipline summaries
trump one’s professional integrity. While it may well
be true that additional financial assistance would provide increased health benefits to many underprivileged
individuals, this does not justify failing to maintain
the standard of practice, including the endorsement of
a misrepresentation in order to obtain financial gain
for a patient.
Dr. Wong’s purported advocacy was limited to promoting access to additional social assistance through
the Ministry of Community and Social Services. There
was no evidence that Dr. Wong advocated for patients
through other avenues such as promoting access to
medical services, either from himself or by recommending medical clinics or physicians who might be suitable
for those patients who presented with specific diagnoses
and who did not have a family physician.
Consequently, the Committee found that Dr. Wong
committed an act of professional misconduct in that he
engaged in conduct relevant to the practice of medicine
that, having regard to all the circumstances, would reasonably be regarded by members as unprofessional.
Reasons for Penalty
The penalty must be proportionate to the findings
made. Moreover, a penalty must follow a number of
established general principles that include protection
of the public, maintenance of public confidence in the
integrity of the profession and the College’s ability to
govern the profession, denunciation of the conduct,
specific and general deterrence, the maintenance of
public trust and, where appropriate, rehabilitation of
the member.
It was the view of the Committee that the financial
consequences of Dr. Wong’s actions to the public at
large were repetitive and of a continuing nature. This,
in addition to the way in which Dr. Wong compromised his integrity, placed Dr. Wong’s actions in a
serious category and justifies a significant period of
suspension. In addition, Dr. Wong has not been required to make restitution and was not the subject of
any criminal proceedings.
The Committee determined that a six-month suspension was appropriate. The Committee did not believe
that a longer suspension was justified, given its conclusions regarding both the fine and the extent of supervision and monitoring. The Committee also took into
account Dr. Wong’s belief, misguided though it was,
that his primary purpose was helping his patients. The
period of suspension is a significant sanction which
should give Dr. Wong, the profession as a whole, and
the public at large a clear message that maintenance of
integrity and public trust is of paramount importance.
The evidence provided in the penalty hearing was
of some value, in that it demonstrated that Dr. Wong
continued to have as his primary motive the maximum
provision of benefits for his patients. It also demonstrated that Dr. Wong had changed his practice and was
no longer completing SDA forms for patients whom he
was not seeing on an ongoing basis. Dr. Wong continued prior to the release of the Committee’s decision on
finding to make SDA claims with inadequate justification, which supports the need for a period of intensive
monitoring of both his clinical records and his completion of SDA forms.
The Committee had found that with respect to the
50 charts reviewed in the finding phase of the hearing,
Dr. Wong failed to maintain the standard of practice
with respect to record-keeping. Monitoring of his
records with the aim of improving the standard of his
record-keeping was therefore a reasonable rehabilitative
component of the penalty.
The Committee agreed with the preceptorship that
was recommended by the College. It is important that
the preceptorship be aimed at improving Dr. Wong’s
standard of record-keeping on the one hand and the accuracy of his completion of special diet allowance forms
on the other. This preceptorship shall be followed by a
reassessment with respect to both his medical recordkeeping and his completion of special diet allowance
forms. As well, the preceptorship shall also incorporate
inspections of Dr. Wong’s OHIP billings and their
supporting chart entries at three month intervals to be
conducted by the staff of the College. Only such an intensive form of monitoring will provide a combination
of appropriate rehabilitation of Dr. Wong’s practices
and at the same time reassurance to the public and to
the profession at large that his practice is changing and
is meeting the standards of the profession.
Dr. Wong has not, as far as the Committee is aware,
made any form of restitution and the imposition of
Full decisions are available online at www.cpso.on.ca.
Select Doctor Search and enter the doctor’s name.
Issue 4, 2014 Dialogue
85