DISCIPLINE SUMMARIES
ORDER
The Discipline Committee ordered: immediate revo-
cation of Dr. Ghabbour’s certificate of registration; a
reprimand; and payment to the College for costs in
the amount of $11,000.
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. Ghabbour waived
his right to an appeal and the Committee administered
the public reprimand.
DR. MORY MAYER GUTMAN
PRACTICE LOCATION: Toronto
AREA OF PRACTICE: General Practice
HEARING INFORMATION: Admission, Agreed Statement of
Facts, Contested Penalty
On August 24, 2017, the Discipline Committee
found that Dr. Gutman committed an act of profes-
sional 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 dis-
graceful, dishonourable or unprofessional.
Previous Discipline History with the College
In 2011, an Order of the Discipline Committee pro-
hibited Dr. Gutman from prescribing narcotic drugs/
preparations, controlled drugs, benzodiazepines and
other targeted substances and he was prohibited from
engaging in professional encounters with any female
patients.
Prescribing Contrary to the Discipline
Committee’s Restrictions
In January of 2013, the College received information
from a pharmacist that Dr. Gutman had prescribed
testosterone gel, which is a controlled substance, to a
male patient in 2012 and 2013, contrary to the terms
of his prescribing restriction.
In May 2014, the Inquiries, Complaints and Re-
38
DIALOGUE ISSUE 3, 2018
ports Committee (ICRC) advised Dr. Gutman to be
vigilant to ensure that he does not breach the terms
of his certificate of registration.
In 2016, information from the Narcotics Moni-
toring System (NMS) for the time period of April
1, 2013 to August 13, 2015, was received by the
College, raising concerns that Dr. Gutman had
prescribed contrary to the terms of the Discipline
Committee Order.
The College commenced an investigation, which
found that Dr. Gutman prescribed the following con-
trolled substances:
• Dr. Gutman prescribed ten repeats of testosterone
gel to Patient A in October 2012. He was unaware
that testosterone was a controlled substance and
therefore a medication he was prohibited from
prescribing.
• Dr. Gutman prescribed Sublinox to:
atient B on two occasions in October 2014;
– P
atient C on three occasions in September 2014;
– P
atient D on two occasions (with 8 refills on a
– P
second occasion) in October 2014;
– P
atient E on two occasions in February 2014
and in April 2016;
– P
atient F on two occasions in October 2014 and
April 2016.
D
r. Gutman was unaware that Sublinox was a
controlled substance and therefore a medication that
he was prohibited from prescribing. The prescrib-
ing occurred prior to a pharmacist bringing to his
attention that this substance was designated as a
controlled drug.
• Dr. Gutman authorized eight refills of phenobarbi-
tal to an elderly patient who suffers from intellec-
tual impairment and seizures in March 2014. Dr.
Gutman was aware that phenobarbital is a con-
trolled substance at the time he prescribed it. The
prescribing occurred in error when Dr. Gutman
was renewing batch prescriptions of medication
prescribed by the patient’s previous physician.
• Dr. Gutman prescribed Clobazam to a young man
with recurrent seizures, on one occasion in Febru-