DISCIPLINE SUMMARIES instruction in medical ethics ; and payment of costs to the College 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 . Pilarski waived her right to an appeal and the Committee administered the public reprimand .
DR . CHRISTOPHER PINTO
PRACTICE LOCATION : Toronto AREA OF PRACTICE : General Practice
HEARING INFORMATION : Admission ; Agreed Statement of Facts , Joint Submission on Penalty
On December 19 , 2016 , the Discipline Committee found that Dr . Pinto committed an act of professional misconduct , in that he has 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 . On April 23 , 2014 , the College ’ s Inquiries , Complaints and Reports Committee ( ICRC ) considered a complaint that claimed that Dr . Pinto failed to administer his office practice in an appropriate manner by failing to provide a patient ’ s medical records to the Workers Safety Insurance Board ( WSIB ) when requested by both the WSIB and the complainant . The ICRC disposed of this complaint by requiring Dr . Pinto to attend the College to be cautioned and to require him to undertake a specified continuing education and remediation program ( SCERP ). The ICRC identified the following concerns when it considered the complaint :
• Dr . Pinto ’ s response to the complaint was that he was unable to find the requested records . Dr . Pinto is required to maintain an adult patient ’ s chart for 10 years from the date of the last entry into the record . He therefore ought to have had the records available when they were requested of him in 2008 ;
• Dr . Pinto maintained he could not find the records . This is unacceptable , as it is a physician ’ s responsibility to maintain records safely . If Dr . Pinto could not find the file , as he claimed , he should have told this to his patient and the WSIB in a timely fashion ;
• Dr . Pinto ’ s response to the WSIB requests for timely information was dismissive , and may have had a deleterious effect on his patient ’ s welfare .
The SCERP ordered requires Dr . Pinto to engage a preceptor acceptable to the College to complete the SCERP , and to :
• engage in focused educational sessions with a preceptor acceptable to the College in the topic of office practice and management .
• maintain a log of requests for documentation throughout the preceptorship , noting all request details , dates of requests and responses to the requests .
• undergo a reassessment which will consist of a review of office practice and management approximately six months following the completion of the preceptorship .
Dr . Pinto appealed the decision to the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board ( HPARB ), which confirmed the ICRC ’ s decision . After the HPARB released its decision on June 2 , 2015 , the College ’ s Compliance Case Manager requested that Dr . Pinto propose the name of a preceptor for College approval so that Dr . Pinto could engage in the educational sessions ordered by the ICRC . Dr . Pinto proposed potential preceptors on June 22 , and then on August 7 and August 12 , 2015 , who were either unacceptable to the College or unwilling to perform the task requested . The Compliance Case Manager wrote to Dr . Pinto , through his counsel , on August 27 , 2015 requesting that Dr . Pinto follow-up with a potential proposed preceptor . Dr . Pinto , through his counsel , indicated he would follow-up . The Compliance Case Manager heard nothing further regarding this preceptor . The Compliance Case Manager wrote to Dr . Pinto , through his counsel , on September 14 and September 23 , 2015 , requesting an update . The College
ISSUE 1 , 2018 DIALOGUE 63