Dialogue Volume 14 Issue 4 2018 - Page 55

DISCIPLINE SUMMARIES • Dr. Dimock complete a Specified Continuing Edu- cation and Remediation Program (SCERP), con- sisting of a period of clinical supervision focusing on both medical care and communication. • Dr. Dimock complete one-on-one instruction in professionalism and communication. • Dr. Dimock be reassessed. In January 2016, Dr. Dimock requested a review of the ICRC’s decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB). On October 5, 2016, during the HPARB review hearing, which is open to the public, Dr. Dimock made false and unfounded assertions to HPARB about Patient A, including that Patient A was a terrorist, a sociopath, a child abductor and was committing insurance fraud. PATIENT B Patient B saw Dr. Dimock in July 2016 for an Inde- pendent Medical Examination (IME) at the request of her insurance company and signed the “Claimant/ Employee Authorization Form” in advance of the IME. Dr. Dimock’s IME report contained all the de- tails Patient B related to him during their session, as well as his conclusion that “there are no restrictions to immediately beginning a slow reintroduction to Patient B’s old workplace.” On November 4, 2016, Patient B complained to the College that Dr. Di- mock had promised that the detailed information she told him during the course of the IME would remain confidential between the two of them, and that Dr. Dimock would only tell the insurance company what his conclusion or diagnosis was. In September 2016, before complaining to the Col- lege, Patient B addressed her concern directly with Dr. Dimock in a series of emails. Following their email exchange, Dr. Dimock sent Patient B a request via the social media site LinkedIn to join her Linke- dIn network, which confused and scared Patient B. The expert retained by the College to provide an independent opinion concluded that the only con- cern was the lack of judgment Dr. Dimock showed in his responses to Patient B’s emails. The expert noted that the responses became antagonistic and peevish. The expert also found the LinkedIn request extremely puzzling and somewhat concerning as Dr. Dimock did not provide an explanation. BEHAVIOUR TOWARDS PROFESSIONAL COLLEAGUES In 2014, Dr. Dimock was practising psychiatry in a shared office setting with Colleague X and Colleague Y, both of whom are regulated professionals. In November 2014, Colleague X telephoned the College about matters Colleague X and Colleague Y discussed about Dr. Dimock’s behaviour. As a result of Colleague X’s call to the College, Dr. Dimock was required to undergo a psychiatric assessment to assess his fitness to practice, which concluded that he was not suffering from a mental condition that would ex- pose or was likely to expose patients to risk of harm. Following this, Dr. Dimock threatened to make a complaint about his colleagues to their own profes- sional regulators, and engaged in repeated rude and threatening behaviour and communications towards them, including yelling, slamming doors, and leaving abusive voicemail messages. ORDER The Committee ordered: a four-month suspension on Dr. Dimock’s certificate of registration; a reprimand; successful completion of an ethics and boundaries course; counselling in anger management or commu- nication in difficult settings; and payment of costs to the College in the amount of $5,500. For complete details, 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. Dimock waived his right to an appeal and the Committee administered the public reprimand. Full decisions are available online at www.cpso.on.ca. Select Find a Doctor and enter the doctor’s name. ISSUE 4, 2018 DIALOGUE 55