discipline summaries
this nature and that he did not discharge this responsibility effectively . Further , when Dr . Peirovy realized that Ms . Z ’ s breasts were fully exposed , his decision to proceed with the examination without offering her privacy , by way of a gown for example , was a serious lapse of judgment . Regardless of time constraints or other issues , Dr . Peirovy should have recognized the vulnerable and compromised situation of Ms . Z , and responded in a more professional manner by assisting in preserving her modesty . The Committee found his conduct in this regard unprofessional .
Following the examination , Dr . Peirovy engaged Ms . Z in conversation which culminated in asking her out on a date . He told her that she would have to sign a note for her chart terminating the doctorpatient relationship , if they were to see each other outside the office . Dr . Peirovy demonstrated egregiously poor judgment in suggesting to Ms . Z that they could see each other socially , in the context of just having compromised her privacy due to the illadvised fashion in which he had examined her . The Committee found this conduct would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful , dishonourable or unprofessional . The Committee found that the evidence with respect to Ms Y ’ s allegations did not meet the requisite standard to make a finding of either sexual abuse or disgraceful , dishonourable , or unprofessional conduct and therefore these allegations are not proven . The Discipline Committee also found that Dr . Peirovy has been found guilty of offences relevant to his suitability to practise in that he was found guilty of assault on Ms . U and Ms . W . The Court imposed a conditional discharge and 18 months probation , with conditions including that Dr . Peirovy attend counselling with Dr . D , perform community service , make a charitable donation , and have no contact with the six complainants in these proceedings .
Dr . Peirovy ’ s Testimony Dr . Peirovy denied the allegations . Dr . Peirovy acknowledged that he may have touched the breasts of the complainants while he was examining them . He denied that this was touching or behaviour of a sexual nature . He acknowledged that he suggested to one patient that they could go out on a date ; he denied that this constituted behaviour or remarks of a sexual nature . Dr . Peirovy admitted that he has been found guilty of two counts of simple assault in relation to two of the complainants . He argued that having been found guilty of theses offences is not relevant to his suitability to practise medicine . Between 2009 and 2010 , the timeframe encompassing the complaints which are the subject of this proceeding , Dr . Peirovy was working in a number of walk-in clinics . He testified that he would generally work six to eight hours per day in these clinics , typically seeing from 40 to 50 patients a day . More than half of his patients would be female . Dr . Peirovy stated that he would often treat minor respiratory problems , and that he would frequently perform lung and chest examinations on both male and female patients . Dr . Peirovy testified that , over the course of his training and subsequent clinical experience , he had developed a routine method of examining patients who presented with relatively minor respiratory complaints . He stated that at walk-in clinics time is limited and he would typically spend no more than ten minutes with each patient . He would start by taking a history of the presenting symptoms and would then usually examine both the upper and lower respiratory systems He would begin with the ears , nose and throat , then proceed to the lungs . His examination of the lungs was limited to auscultation . He would use his stethoscope to listen to the lungs by placing the diaphragm of the stethoscope directly on the patient ’ s skin , first on the patient ’ s back while the patient might be sitting or standing , then on the anterior chest , with the patient lying supine on the examination table . Dr . Peirovy stated that , with the patient lying on their back on the examination table , he would usually tell them to turn their head to the side away from him while he was examining their chest . This was because he would often ask them to cough during the course of the examinations , and by this means he protected himself from the patient ’ s expirations . Dr . Peirovy explained his usual method of holding his stethoscope . Listening on the patient ’ s back , which would typically be exposed through the lifting of clothing to the shoulder level , he held the bell of the stethoscope between his thumb and first two fingers , with his other fingers flexed and , therefore ,
66
Dialogue Issue 1 , 2017