Dialogue Volume 13 Issue 2 2017 - Page 53

discipline summaries mented by Dr. Foote’s department will serve to foster change. The Committee ordered a reprimand, a one-month suspension, a course on medical ethics, and costs to the College for $5,000. Dr. Atef Malak Shehata Ghali Practice Location: Ottawa Area of Practice: Family Medicine At the conclusion of the hearing, Dr. Foote waived his right to appeal and the Committee administered the public reprimand. Hearing Information: Admission, Agreed State- ment of Facts, Joint Submission on Penalty 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 May 24, 2016, the Discipline Committee found that Dr. Atef Ghali committed an act of professional misconduct, in that he has engaged in an act or omis- sion relevant to the practice of medicine that, having regard to all the circumstances, would reasonably be What does this mean? used in the discipline process Admission The physician admits that the facts alleged amount to professional mis- We provide definitions for the legal terminology penalty unless it would be contrary to the public interest and bring the ad- ministration of justice into disrepute. conduct and/or incompetence. Plea of No Contest The physician does not contest the facts. The College files a statement of facts as an exhibit at the hearing. The Discipline Committee can accept the facts as correct and make a finding of professional misconduct and/or incompetence. The physician does not admit to the facts or findings for the purpose of any other proceeding. Agreed Statement of Facts A statement of facts that are negoti- ated and agreed to by the College and the physician. It is filed as an exhibit at the hearing. Joint Submission on Penalty A penalty that is proposed to the Committee as an appropriate penalty by both the College and the physi- cian. In law, the Discipline Committee must accept a joint submission on Contested Hearing The physician denies the allegations. The College must prove the allega- tions on a balance of probabilities (the civil standard of proof) by calling evidence such as witnesses. If one or more of the allegations is proved, a penalty hearing is scheduled. The College and the physician may agree and jointly propose a penalty to the Committee or they may disagree and a contested penalty hearing takes place. Aggravating, Mitigating Circumstances Aggravating and mitigating circum- stances may be considered by the Discipline Committee in determining an appropriate penalty. Mitigating and aggravating circumstances are considered by the Committee, so that the penalty imposed is proportionate to the gravity of the physician’s con- duct, and the degree of responsibility of the physician. Mitigating circum- stances tend to reduce penalties, whereas aggravating circumstances tend to increase penalties. Aggravating circumstances could include: a high degree of vulnerability of the person(s) affected by the phy- sician’s conduct; a prior disciplinary history with the College; a lack of in- sight by the physician into his or her own misconduct; a lack of remorse about the effects of the misconduct on others. Mitigating circumstances could in- clude: a clean disciplinary record; an admission to the facts underlying the allegations in advance of a hearing; cooperating with the investigation; a demonstration of remorse or regret about the effects of the misconduct on others; taking remedial steps on the physician’s own initiative prior to a finding or an order by the College. Issue 2, 2017 Dialogue 53