discipline summaries
penalty, Dr. Awad saved the Committee and the College the time and expense of a contested hearing.
The Committee was also somewhat comforted to
learn that, in response to the independent expert’s report, not only had Dr. Awad acknowledged the problems in his practice, but had already made important
changes to his clinical care and office procedures. In
particular, he informed the Committee that he now:
• rranges to see all patients following a sleep study
a
and prior to prescribing CPAP;
• hooses not to prescribe sedative medication prior
c
to a clinical assessment;
• arns patients of driving-related risks in nonw
coercive language; and
• ommunicates results of initial sleep studies to
c
patients himself, rather than delegating this task
to his office staff.
The Committee also noted that Dr. Awad had no
previous findings made against him by the Discipline
Committee.
With respect to a consideration of the aggravating
factors, the Committee was deeply concerned about
Dr. Awad’s decision to prescribe medication and
other treatments before he had completed appropriate clinical assessments, and to use coercive and
incorrect information to influence patients to return
for follow-up.
The Committee found the evidence with respect to
Dr. Awad’s use of another physician’s name particularly disconcerting. Improper billing practices reflect
negatively not only on the physician submitting such
claims to OHIP, but can also raise questions among
the public about the honesty and integrity of the
profession at large.
The Committee considered the principles set out
in case law with respect to determining appropriate
penalty in the discipline setting, including: denunciation of the misconduct, specific and general deterrence, rehabilitation of the member, and upholding
public confidence in the profession. The overall
penalty as proposed reflects the profession’s and
the public’s denunciation of Dr. Awad’s behaviour,
and will support public confidence in the profession’s ability to regulate its members appropriately.
The suspension and practice assessment will serve to
protect the public. The Committee expects that these
components of the penalty will also serve to deter Dr.
Awad from repeating the misconduct in the future,
and will provide general deterrence. The ongoing
oversight of his practice will provide Dr. Awad with
an opportunity for remediation.
In summary, the Committee is satisfied that the
penalty that has been jointly proposed is appropriate,
reasonable and fair, and is also consistent with the
penalty imposed in other similar cases.
Order
The Discipline Committee ordered and directed that:
1. the Registrar suspend Dr. Awad’s certificate of
registration for a period of three months, to commence immediately.
2. the Registrar impose the following terms, condi
tions and limitations on Dr. Awad’s certificate of
registration:
r. Awad, at his own expense, shall submit to an
i) D
assessment of his practice by an assessor selected
by the College within six months of the date of
this Order. The assessor shall focus the assessment upon the deficiencies identified in the
review of Dr. Awad’s practice and shall additionally consider Dr. Awad’s performance as Quality
Advisor as referenced in the Independent Health
Facilities Act, Ontario Regulation 57/92.
ii) r. Awad shall abide by all reasonable recomD
mendations of the assessor.
3. Dr. Awad appear before the panel to be repri
manded.
4. Dr. Awad pay to the College costs in the amount
of $4,460 within 30 days of the date of this Order.
At the conclusion of the hearing, Dr. Awad waived his
right to an appeal and the Committee administered the
public reprimand.
Full decisions are available online at www.cpso.on.ca.
Select Doctor Search and enter the doctor’s name.
Issue 2, 2015 Dialogue
57