discipline summaries
although his testimony on this issue was evasive and somewhat lacking in credibility , as he was reluctant to acknowledge sexual interest on his part . Both Dr . Peirovy and Ms . Z agree that he asked her to sign a note for her chart terminating the doctor-patient relationship . Dr . Peirovy ’ s evidence with respect to his usual routine in examining patients in the walk-in clinics where he worked was similarly clear and straightforward . His explanation for why he did not require patients to disrobe , as primarily in the interests of time and convenience , was understandable to the Committee . His statements , however , that examinations of this nature also served to protect a female patient ’ s modesty , while the examination itself entailed placing his hand under their clothes and touching their breasts , strikes the Committee as somewhat disingenuous , under the circumstances . Although points of factual disagreement between the evidence of Dr . Peirovy and that of the complainants are relatively few , they are significant . Dr . Peirovy denies that he cupped the breasts of any of these patients , auscultated directly on the nipple or tweaked the breast of a patient . The complainants each allege that Dr . Peirovy touched their breasts in a blatantly sexual fashion . Dr . Peirovy denies that he touched them in this way . Dr . Peirovy ’ s defence , essentially , is that his motivation was not sexual , and that he was simply examining these patients in accordance with his usual practice in performing legitimate , clinically-appropriate examinations . Dr . Peirovy submits that the complainants in this case thought that they had been touched in a sexual fashion when , in fact , they had not . It is submitted that the patients misunderstood what had occurred . It is stated that the possible reasons for this misunderstanding included these patients ’ unfamiliarity with Dr . Peirovy and his method of examination , his lack of adequate communication with them , and the limited time available for the appointments . Dr . Peirovy argues that his actions as described above were of a clinical nature appropriate to the service provided . Dr . Peirovy ’ s position , more precisely , is that the examination of the lungs of these patients was of an appropriate clinical nature , and that the aspects of the touching which the patients interpreted as sexual were incidental to the proper auscultation of their lungs . Dr . Peirovy does not suggest that there was a clinical necessity for him to have cupped the breasts of any patient with his hands , auscultated directly on the nipple , or tweaked the nipple with his fingers . Rather , Dr . Peirovy denies that he touched each of these patients in the specific fashion in which they allege . Dr . Peirovy testified that he had been unaware that any of these six patients had been made uncomfortable by his examinations , or that they had been upset or unhappy about any aspect of their encounters with him , at the times when they were seen . In the case of one complainant , Ms . U , she returned to the clinic with her boyfriend within a few minutes of the examination , obviously upset . Dr . Peirovy indicated that he explained to them why he examined her as he had , and he thought that they were satisfied with the explanation .
Expert Testimony Both the College and Dr . Peirovy presented a medical expert to testify . Both medical experts agree that it was clinically reasonable for Dr . Peirovy to have examined each of the complainants , in light of their presenting problems and their respective histories . The Committee agreed . The expert evidence heard by the Committee also confirms that , in the course of a legitimate and clinically appropriate examination , inadvertent / incidental contact between the hand and / or stethoscope of the examining physician , and the patient ’ s breast , including the nipple area , may occur . Neither expert , however , offered the opinion that there was a clinical necessity for Dr . Peirovy to have placed his stethoscope directly on the nipple of a patient , tweak the nipples of one complainant , or cup the breasts of two complainants with his hand .
Similar Fact Evidence – Ms . U , Ms . V , Ms . W , Ms . X The Committee found that the allegations of four of the complainants in this case , namely Ms . U , Ms . V , Ms . W , and Ms . X , were strikingly similar . These were all young women who were examined by Dr . Peirovy on one occasion only at walk-in clinics . The examinations occurred in close temporal proximity , within roughly 12 months in 2009-2010 . All of these
68
Dialogue Issue 1 , 2017