discipline summaries
The Committee determined that the appropriate costs award in this matter should be the tariff rate requested by the College reduced by 30 percent . The Committee therefore orders costs of $ 28,098 to be paid within six months . In summary , the College directed revocation , a public reprimand , and costs in the amount of $ 28,098 . On August 24 , 2016 , Dr . Kamermans appealed the Discipline Committee ’ s decisions to the Divisional Court of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice .
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 .
Dr . CHINNIAH KRISHNALINGAM
Practice Location : Richmond Hill Area of Practice : PsychiATRy
Hearing InformATion : STATement of Uncontested FacTS , Uncontested Penalty
On February 8 , 2016 , the Discipline Committee found that Dr . Chinniah Krishnalingam committed acts of professional misconduct , in that he has engaged in sexual abuse of a patient , and he has engaged in an act or omission 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 . Krishnalingam did not contest the allegations . Dr . Krishnalingam , a psychiatrist who had a certificate of registration with the College until he resigned it on December 21 , 2015 , treated Patient A on at least 26 separate occasions between 2011 and 2012 . The treatment took place at a hospital where Patient A attended the hospital ’ s mental health program between May and June 2011 . Patient A had a history of experiencing abuse and suffered depression . During appointments , Dr . Krishnalingam asked Patient A insensitive and inappropriate questions about her sex life , including how many times per week she had sex with her husband . Dr . Krishnalingam also suggested that Patient A ’ s husband had engaged in extramarital sex because she did not have sex with him often enough . Dr . Krishnalingam advised that she should have sex with her husband more often so that he would not have to ‘ go elsewhere ’ for sex . Dr . Krishnalingam also made inappropriate comments about Patient A ’ s appearance , including telling Patient A she was a very beautiful woman and that her lips were very sexy . Dr . Krishnalingam grabbed and hugged Patient A on several occasions despite her clear indications on each occasion that she did not consent to physical contact . On one occasion , at the end of a session as Patient A was leaving , Dr . Krishnalingam grabbed and hugged her with both arms , pressing his chest against hers . Dr . Krishnalingam attempted to kiss Patient A during this hug ; she pushed him away and turned her head to the side such that his lips touched her cheek . On several occasions Dr . Krishnalingam asked Patient A to attend the hospital on weekends when he was on call . When she asked why , he indicated so they could be alone and would not be disturbed . He gave his personal phone number to her and asked that she call him to arrange meetings while he was on call at the hospital . Patient A did not call him on his personal phone number or see him when he was on call . During follow-up appointments Dr . Krishnalingam inquired as to why she was not coming to see him when he was on call and again indicated nobody else would be present on the floor , they would be alone together , and they could talk and get to know one another . During sessions with Patient A , Dr . Krishnalingam failed to maintain patient confidentiality by leaving patient files out on his desk such that Patient A could see the patients ’ names , dates of birth , medications , and other personal health information . On at least one occasion , Dr . Krishnalingam disclosed to Patient A that he was being investigated by the College and asked whether she had reported
Full decisions are available online at www . cpso . on . ca . Select Doctor Search and enter the doctor ’ s name .
Issue 1 , 2017 Dialogue 63