Dialogue Volume 13 Issue 2 2017 - Page 59

discipline summaries that he believed he should have been present on the video link system to comply with Manitoba Health’s fee guideline; that he did not always review the nurse practitioner’s chart entries; and that he never left the hospital when he may have been required on an urgent basis. An Inquiry Panel of the CPSM held proceedings regarding Dr. Hui’s conduct and found that Dr. Hui had committed acts of professional misconduct. Because Dr. Hui was not licensed to practise in Manitoba at the time of the hearing, the penalty or- dered by the CPSM Inquiry Panel was a reprimand, a fine of $10,000 in lieu of a period of suspension, costs of $28,160.25 payable to the CPSM, and pub- lication of Dr. Hui’s name and the Inquiry Panel’s decision. Reasons for Penalty There are two issues before the Discipline Commit- tee in this case. The first issue is Dr. Hui’s fraudulent billing of Manitoba Health. Dr. Hui participated in a scheme in which he fraudulently billed $201,223 to Manitoba Health while he was still a medical resident. The Committee agreed that it is inexcus- able misconduct for a physician to be intentionally dishonest and fraudulent for financial gain. The second issue is Dr. Hui’s deceiving the govern- ing body in Manitoba at the outset of his disciplinary investigation. The College of Physicians and Surgeons of each province must have the utmost cooperation from the physicians in their jurisdiction in order to maintain public confidence in self-regulation. The Committee considered at length the fact that Dr. Hui has already gone through the disciplinary process in Manitoba. Although he originally retained $60,000 from his fraudulent billing of that province, he ultimately reimbursed Manitoba Health for the entire amount billed, which was $201,223. Dr. Hui was also fined $10,000.00 by the CPSM, and ordered to pay $28,160.25 in costs of that proceeding. There was significant media attention to this case in Manitoba, and Dr. Hui has faced public shame and embarrassment. However, at the time of his Manitoba discipline hearing, Dr. Hui did not have a license to practise medicine in Manitoba and therefore the CPSM could not suspend his license. The CPSM stated in their decision that they believed that the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario “will likely have a significant role to play in determining the status of Dr. Hui’s licence to practice in Ontario.” Both counsel for the College and counsel for Dr. Hui agreed that, since Dr. Hui moved to Ontario to practise medicine, it is reasonable for Dr. Hui to expect to be penalized here. Further, Ontario legislation provides that the Col- lege can convene a hearing against a physician with a finding in another jurisdiction. Section 51(1)(b) of the Code states that “a panel shall find that a member has committed an act of professional misconduct if… the governing body of a health profession in a jurisdiction other than Ontario has found that the member committed an act of professional miscon- duct that would, in the opinion of the panel, be an act of professional misconduct as defined in the regulations.” Counsel for both the College and Dr. Hui also agreed that the CPSM would have suspended Dr. Hui’s licence if he had a licence to practise in Mani- toba at the time of his discipline hearing there. The Committee also considered the mitigating fac- tors in this case. Dr. Hui has cooperated fully with the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, thus negating the cost and expense of a full contested hearing. He has taken responsibility for his actions in Manitoba. His misconduct occurred early i 06&VW"BR2v&VB&BFV&&6FRG'W7@B&W7V7BbFRV&Ɩ22vV2FR&fW76आ27W'&VB6Vbb7Ffb2v&Rb27F'vFFR54B&VƖWfW2G"VF&RW7B@&VƖ&RFW&RfR&VVgW'FW"66W&2vFVFW"G"V( 2&7F6RbVF6R"2&Ɩr`66RR&Vv&7F6rF&#"FR6֗GFVRw&VVBvFFR'FW>( 7V&֗2Ч62FBFR&6VBVGvVBWBFP&VWfBVG&6W2b7V6f2BvVW&FWFW'&V6RV&Ɩ26fFV6R6Vb&VwVF&RЦ&ƗFF2vV2FV7G&FRFR6֗GFV^( 06FVFbG"V( 2g&VGVVB&Ɩr&2ЧF6RBF6W7GvFFR6VvRb660B7W&vV2bF&FR6֗GFVR6FWFW&֖VBFBF2v2&&FR66RF&FW"67G2BFRF&fb&FR`CRf"RFV&rग77VR"#rFwVPS