Dialogue Volume 13 Issue 2 2017 - Page 72

discipline summaries In the Committee’s view, the expert evidence, which was accepted by the Committee, indicated that the single-head stethoscope that was employed by Dr. OPQ requires that the physician holds the stethoscope’s head between his first and second finger with the flat of his hand touching the patient’s skin. In the Committee’s view, the physician’s hand would therefore rest on the patient’s chest or breast when the physician is auscultating for breath sounds. Such touching is clinically appropriate to the examination, and does not constitute sexual abuse. Given the Committee did not find that Dr. OPQ touched Patient A in a sexual manner on a date in November 2010, the Committee also finds that he did not engage in disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional conduct. Also, the expert evidence established that a gown was not a requirement for a chest examination. In summary, the Committee found that the College had not established on the basis of clear, cogent and convincing evidence that Dr. OPQ touched Patient A’s breast in a sexual manner on a date in November 2010. The Committee concluded that Patient A did not try to misrepresent what happened during the chest examination by Dr. OPQ, but that she did misperceive and misinterpret the examination, for the reasons indicated above. Full decisions are available online at www.cpso.on.ca. Select Doctor Search and enter the doctor’s name. APPEAL SUMMARies DR. MARY ELIZABETH McINTYRE Formerly Chatham The decision of the Discipline Committee was pub- lished in Dialogue, Issue 4, 2016. On August 5, 2015, Dr. McIntyre initiated an ap- peal of the finding of sexual abuse of Patient Y, and the penalty decision of the Discipline Committee to the Superior Court of Justice (Divisional Court). The appeal was heard on December 8, 2016. The Divisional Court dismissed Dr. McIntyre’s appeal on January 17, 2017 with $10,000 in costs to the College. Dr. McIntyre is seeking leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal for Ontario. DR. SAMMY JOE SLIWIN Formerly Toronto The decision of the Discipline Committee was pub- lished in Dialogue, Issue 4, 2016. On April 2, 2015, Dr. Sliwin initiated an appeal of the decision of the Discipline Committee to the Superior Court of Justice (Divisional Court), and he made a motion to stay the order of the Discipline Committee pending the appeal. On April 8, 2015, the Divisional Court ordered that Dr. Sliwin’s revoca- tion be stayed and that he be permitted to practise pending the appeal. The appeal was heard on June 28, 2016. The Divi- sional Court dismissed Dr. Sliwin’s appeal on March 27, 2017, except that the Court set aside the Com- mittee’s order of February 1, 2016 to provide secu- rity for therapy or counseling costs. Therefore, the decision of the Discipline Committee, except for the order to provide security for therapy or counseling costs, is in effect. MD 72 Dialogue Issue 2, 2017