Dialogue Volume 13 Issue 4 2017 - Page 68

DISCIPLINE SUMMARIES asked Dr. Crozier for money. Patient C told Dr. Cro- zier that she needed money because her family was not doing well financially. She threatened to report Dr. Crozier to the College for his boundary cross- ings with her in 1997 and for his alcohol use if Dr. Crozier did not provide her with money. Dr. Crozier provided Patient C with several thousand dollars in 1997. Thereafter, Patient C continued to threaten Dr. Crozier and ask him for money. He continued to pay her with the exception of two years until the fall of 2013. Dr. Crozier estimates having paid Patient C a total of approximately $150,000. Dr. Crozier received residential treatment for alcohol abuse (substance abuse disorder) in 2000 and 2001. He returned to the practice of medicine in the middle of 2002. Upon his return to practice, Dr. Crozier saw Patient C for appointments from July 2002 to September 2006. The allegations with respect to Patient C came to the College’s attention in July of 2014 through a third party. REASONS FOR PENALTY It is the Committee’s duty to ensure that the jointly proposed penalty will satisfy the penalty criteria established by the courts. These include protection of the public, specific and general deterrence, denuncia- tion of the misconduct, maintenance of the public confidence in the medical profession and its capabil- ity to regulate in the public interest and, in so far as possible, rehabilitation of the member. Revocation of Dr. Crozier’s certificate of registra- tion will protect the public. There is no place in the medical profession for physicians who sexually abuse their patients. The Committee believes that the pen- alty of revocation is the only penalty that will fully express the public’s and the profession’s disapproval of Dr. Crozier’s misconduct. Dr. Crozier’s grossly self-indulgent actions have had long-lasting and devastating effects on Patients A and B and their relationships with others, and have undermined their trust in the medical profession as a whole. These two victims were highly vulnerable pa- tients who sought the help of Dr. Crozier and wholly trusted him because they had very long-standing therapeutic relationships, which he betrayed. The public must be confident that when they seek the 68 DIALOGUE ISSUE 4, 2017 help of a member of the profession, they will not be abused, and that when a patient is abused, the Col- lege will act to ensure no others are harmed. Dr. Crozier’s misconduct with Patient C astounded the Committee. His misconduct with Patient C displays extremely poor judgment involving repeated boundaries transgressions. Dr. Crozier made pay- ments of large sums of money to her to prevent her from reporting his behaviour to the College. Such misconduct cannot be tolerated. A public reprimand will serve to denounce Dr. Cro- zier’s reprehensible misconduct and serve as a general deterrent to the membership of the profession. When determining an appropriate penalty, it is important for the Committee to take into consider- ation any mitigating factors. Dr. Crozier has accepted responsibility in both the criminal and professional proceedings against him. Admitting to the allega- tions against him has spared the victims the added trauma of having to appear at the hearing. However, these patients may require continued therapy to recover from the sexual abuse they endured, and so it is reasonable and just that Dr. Crozier reimburse the College for the funding of therapy they may need. Dr. Crozier’s admission and cooperation has spared the College the added time and costs of a contested hearing. However, it is fair and reasonable that Dr. Crozier cover some of the costs of the proceeding, by way of paying the tariff amount of $5,000 for one day of hearing to the College, as jointly requested. ORDER In summary, the Discipline Committee ordered: revocation of Dr. Crozier’s certificate of registration; a reprimand; reimbursement to the College for fund- ing provided to Patient A and B under the program required under section 85.7 of the Code, by posting an irrevocable letter of credit or other security ac- ceptable to the College, in the amount of $32,120; and costs to the College in the amount of $5,000. For complete details of the Order, please see the full decision at www.cpso.on.ca. Select Find a Doctor and enter the doctor’s name. At the conclusion of the hearing, Dr. Crozier waived his right to an appeal and the Committee administered the public reprimand.