discipline summaries
DR. XYZ
Case Not Proven, Contested Hearing
The Discipline Committee found the allegations against
Dr. XYZ were not proved. It had been alleged that Dr.
XYZ: (a) committed an act of professional misconduct
in that he engaged in the sexual abuse of a patient; and
(b) that he had engaged in conduct or an act or acts
relevant to the practice of medicine that, having regard
to all the circumstances, would reasonably be regarded
by members as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional. Dr. XYZ denied the allegations.
Dr. XYZ is certified as a specialist in internal medicine by the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons
of Canada. He has an interest in rheumatology and
cardiology. He practises in various clinics in and around
City 1 and supervises cardiac stress tests in a cardiac
laboratory.
Patient A is a man in his early 40’s living in City 1
who works in construction. Having suffered from chest
pains for some time, he was referred by his physician for
a cardiac treadmill stress test to be conducted in 2007.
The stress test was supervised by Dr. XYZ. A prior knee
injury precluded a treadmill test so Dr. XYZ substituted
a Persantine (dye) test. During the period between the
two test stages, Patient A and Dr. XYZ became engaged
in conversation concerning Patient A’s knee problem.
They discovered that they had a common heritage and
previous time spent in a Canadian city. Patient A gave
Dr. XYZ his card. Dr. XYZ entered Patient A’s phone
number in his phone, and he provided his cell number
to Patient A.
In March 2008, Patient A contacted Dr. XYZ and
arrangements were made for them to meet the following
morning at Dr. XYZ’s house. Dr. XYZ’s fitness trainer
was also at the house at the time of the meeting.
The College, relying on the testimony of Patient
A, alleged that Dr. XYZ sexually abused Patient A by
performing an inappropriate rectal examination and
touching his penis. Dr. XYZ denied this, and testified
that the purpose of Patient A’s visit to his house was Patient A’s interest in renovating his kitchen. He said that
the only examination he performed that day was to take
Patient A’s blood pressure and to listen to his chest and
heart with a stethoscope, after Patient A complained of
chest pain.
The Committee heard the testimony of: a College
investigator; Dr. XYZ; Patient A; Mr. B, who was Dr.
XYZ’s fitness trainer and who was in the house at the
time of the alleged events; and Ms. C, Dr. XYZ’s girlfriend.
The Committee found that the evidence of Dr. XYZ
was presented calmly, logically and reasonably. There
were no significant internal or extern