Dialogue Volume 13 Issue 2 2017 - Page 64

discipline summaries responsibilities are of a degree that no form of reme- diation is appropriate. The Committee accepts that this was the first time Dr. Marcin has appeared before it and that the hear- ing proceeded by way of agreed statement of the facts and admission or plea of no contest. However, in the face of such overwhelming misconduct, the Committee is of the view that there are no significant mitigating circumstances and revocation is the only proportional penalty. The Committee found that this was an appropriate case in which to award costs. Costs are ordered in the amount of $10,000. The Discipline Committee ordered and directed that: the Registrar revoke Dr. Marcin’s certificate of registration effective immediately; Dr. Marcin appear before the Discipline Committee to be reprimanded; and that Dr. Marcin pay to the College its costs fixed at $10,000. At the conclusion of the hearing, Dr. Marcin waived her right to appeal and the Committee administered the public reprimand. 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. HERMAN YIP-CHI NG Practice Location: Toronto Area of Practice: General Practice Hearing Information: Agreed Statement of Facts, Uncontested; Joint Submission on Penalty On February 22, 2016, the Discipline Committee found that Dr. Herman Ng committed acts of profes- sional misconduct, in that he failed to maintain the standard of practice of the profession; and he en- gaged 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 dis- graceful, dishonourable or unprofessional. 64 Dialogue Issue 2, 2017 The Discipline Committee also found that Dr. Ng is incompetent. Dr. Ng is a 68 year-old general practitioner. Patient A was Dr. Ng’s patient for approximately 10 years. On February 13, 2015, the College received a complaint from Patient A expressing concerns about how Dr. Ng conducted himself during an ap- pointment on February 7, 2015. Patient A was also concerned that Dr. Ng failed to maintain adequate cleanliness in his office environment. On February 27, 2015, the College conducted an unannounced inspection at Dr. Ng’s clinic which revealed significant cleanliness concerns, including: • the disposing of used non-safety engineered syring- es in a dirty sink; • no clear delineation between soiled and clean areas; • improper cleansing and disinfecting of instruments; and • a dirty and cluttered examination/utility/consulta- tion room. On April 15, 2015, Dr. Ng provided the College with what he purported to be Patient A’s original patient chart. The College investigator sent a letter to Dr. Ng dated May 11, 2015, asking for Dr. Ng to confirm that he had not altered the chart in any way or made any changes to it, and that all entries were made on the dates shown on the chart. Dr. Ng’s counsel sent a letter to the College on May 13, 2015, stating that Dr. Ng had not altered the chart in any way, and that all entries had been made contemporaneously. The College retained a forensic document exam- iner to review Patient A’s chart. The forensic report confirmed that parts of Dr. Ng’s chart for Patient A had been substituted and backdated. The College retained an expert, Dr. Z, to review Dr. Ng’s care for Patient A; Dr. Ng’s infection con- trol procedures; and Dr. Ng’s maintenance of equip- ment in his practice. Dr. Z’s review of Dr. Ng’s care of Patient A was based on Dr. Ng’s chart, which had been altered by Dr. Ng. Dr. Z’s comments on Dr. Ng’s infection control procedures included the following: “Dr. Ng did not meet the standard of practice of the profession as of March 12, 2015, with respect