discipline summaries
The fact of Dr. Noriega having failed to comply
with conditions of a previous undertaking, put in
place specifically for the purpose of protecting the
public, seriously undermines the submission of his
counsel that the goals of penalty can be addressed by
a proposed penalty which would include conditions
on Dr. Noriega’s certificate of registration. The Committee has no confidence whatsoever that Dr. Noriega
would now abide by conditions and restrictions on his
practice, when he failed to do so in what is described
as a deliberate demonstration of flagrant disregard, on
a previous occasion.
The Committee is struck by the particularly abhorrent nature of the sexual impropriety committed by
Dr. Noriega with Ms X. This was a teenager who, in
many respects, was the epitome of vulnerability. She
had developed what she believed to have been a trusting therapeutic relationship with Dr. Noriega over a
period of approximately one year. Dr. Noriega took
advantage of her sexually, in a most egregious fashion,
masturbating her to orgasm under the guise of a medical examination. Ms X was seriously traumatized as a
result.
Dr. Noriega is a pediatrician who took advantage
of his position of trust and authority, derived from a
physician/patient relationship, to sexually victimize,
in a most intrusive and offensive fashion, a vulnerable
teenager. In the view of the Committee, this easily falls
within the range of “the most serious” forms of professional misconduct. It is deserving of the most severe
penalty.
It is self-evident that the public must be protected
from pediatricians who sexually abuse their adolescent
patients. Misconduct of this nature is likely to cause
serious harm. The patients affected are often severely
traumatized, as was Ms X. Their families, the wider
community, and the medical profession as a whole are
also harmed through the erosion of public confidence
and trust in the profession.
This Committee has been presented with no evidence which would assist in understanding the origins
of Dr. Noriega’s deviant behaviour. If, as suggested
by his counsel, Dr. Noriega’s certificate of registration
was suspended for a limited period of time, he would
be free to return to practice without any necessity
for the risk factors pertaining to potential recidivism,
whatever they may be, having been addressed. It is a
46
Dialogue Issue 3, 2016
reasonable inference, accordingly, that he would remain at risk for future misconduct of this nature. The
fact that there are no allegations of subsequent sexual
misconduct against him in the past 11 years does not
inspire confidence in the Committee that the risk to
the public has been eliminated. The circumstances of
this case would in fact suggest otherwise; Dr. Noriega
has demonstrated a pattern of transgressions separated
by a lengthy period of time, and his previous behaviour demonstrates a complete disregard of the terms of
his undertaking. This indicates to the Committee that
there is a continuing risk to the public.
Maintenance of public confidence in the integrity of
the profession is of crucial importance in a case of this
nature. In the view of the Committee, a strong statement of denunciation is required in order to ensure
that public confidence is preserved.
The Committee considered Dr. Noriega’s personal
circumstances as outlined by his counsel, and the letters of support from families of some of his patients,
which were filed on his behalf. The Committee accepts
that the revocation of Dr. Noriega’s certificate of registration will have very serious consequences for him.
This is to be expected under the circumstances. Significant hardship could well result. This issue, however, is
not a central concern of the Committee. The Committee is concerned with arriving at a just penalty which,
in all the circumstances of the case, achieves the goals
of public protection, maintenance of public confidence in the integrity of the profession, and specific
and general deterrence.
In summary, the Committee ordered the following:
revocation of Dr. Noriega’s certificate of registration; a
public reprimand; and payment to the College in the
amount of $40,140 for hearing costs.
Order
For complete details of the Order, please see the
full decision at www.cpso.on.ca . Select Doctor
Search and enter the Doctor’s Name.
On November 25, 2014, Dr. Noriega appealed the
decision on finding of the Discipline Committee to the
Superior Court of Justice (Divisional Court).
On March 8, 2016, the Divisional Court dismissed
Dr. Noriega’s appeal and ordered him to pay costs in the
amount of $10,000 to the College.