Dialogue Volume 14 Issue 1 2018 - Page 61

DISCIPLINE SUMMARIES DR. ZVI MARGALIOT PRACTICE LOCATION: Mississauga AREA OF PRACTICE: Plastic Surgery HEARING INFORMATION: Plea of No Contest; Agreed Statement of Facts; Contested Penalty On September 19, 2016, the Discipline Committee found that Dr. Margaliot committed acts of profes- sional misconduct, in that he engaged in the sexual abuse of a patient; and he engaged in conduct or an act or omission relevant to the practice of medicine that, having regard to all the circumstances, would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable, or unprofessional, including by: a) making remarks of a sexual nature not appropri- ate to the care provided; and b) engaging in a sexual relationship which in- cluded sexual intercourse during the physician- patient relationship. Dr. Margaliot, who has held a certificate of regis- tration authorizing independent practice in Ontario since 2005, is certified by the Royal College of Physi- cians and Surgeons of Canada as a specialist in plastic surgery, and practises medicine as a hand surgeon. Patient A was referred to Dr. Margaliot for recur- ring wrist pain and was first treated by him in March 2009. At the time, Patient A was 22 years of age and an undergraduate student. Between March 2009 and June 2010, Dr. Mar- galiot treated Patient A on 10 occasions, including performing two surgeries on her right wrist. In April 2010, while still engaged in a doctor- patient relationship, Patient A sent Dr. Margaliot a friend request via Facebook, which Dr. Margaliot accepted. In June 2010, at the last post-operative appoint- ment following her second wrist surgery, Dr. Mar- galiot stated in his clinical record that he would be happy to see Patient A again if she had any concerns. In August 2010, Patient A contacted Dr. Margaliot through Facebook. Shortly thereafter, the two began to correspond by email. In October 2010, Patient A invited Dr. Margaliot for coffee. Dr. Margaliot proposed a meeting place, and the two met for coffee. The two continued to exchange emails of a sexual nature. On a date in December 2010, Patient A emailed Dr. Margaliot as follows: “Zvi, my wrist is killing me.. its bad enough I can barely use a speculum because its so weak... a) I  s this anything physio might fix (friend’s sugges- tion) b) i  s it still appropriate for you to be my physician and c) i  s there anything else we can do for this because it hurrrrts” Dr. Margaliot replied: “R or L wrist PT is usually not indicated until you a) have a diagnosis and b) it is something amenable to PT. I can look at it for you next week. Call Zohra ...” Dr. Margaliot then asked "why, are you over-using your wrist?" and she replied "you’d like that wouldn’t you.” Dr. Margaliot treated Patient A in his office prac- tice on a date in January 2011. On a date later on in January 2011, the two met for coffee. After this meeting, the two began texting. Some of the texts were of a sexual nature. In February 2011, the two met for coffee and kissed. They met two days later in his office, in the evening, and engaged in kissing and touching of a sexual nature. In early March 2011, following a sexu- ally explicit Gchat communication, the two met in the on-call room of the hospital and had intercourse. Dr. Margaliot treated Patient A again on a date in March 2011. He examined her for 50 minutes. At that appointment, she signed a consent for a third surgery, this time on her left wrist. Subsequently, in close proximity to the appoint- ment, while still engaged in a physician-patient rela- tionship, the two had sexual intercourse, including in his office. Her surgery did not proceed. The two continued to Full decisions are available online at www.cpso.on.ca. Select Find a Doctor and enter the doctor’s name. ISSUE 1, 2018 DIALOGUE 61