Dialogue Volume 14 Issue 4 2018 - Page 69

DISCIPLINE SUMMARIES that Dr. Kunynetz contravened a term, condition and limitation on his certificate of registration. ORDER The Discipline Committee ordered: the revocation of Dr. Kunynetz’s certificate of registration; a rep- rimand; reimbursement to the College for funding provided to patients under the program required under Section 85.7 of the Code in the amount of $16,060; and payment of costs in the amount of $145,460. DISSENTING REASONS - RETROSPECTIVITY A majority of the panel agreed that the amendments to the RHPA make revocation mandatory for the sexual abuse engaged in by Dr. Kunynetz and ac- cepted the College’s position that the amendments have retrospective effect. One member of the panel wrote dissenting reasons on the issue of retrospectivity, disagreeing that the amendments have retrospective effect. The Committee, including the dissenting mem- ber, found that revocation was appropriate in this case even without taking into account the amendments. For complete details, please see the full decision at www.cpso.on.ca. Select Find a Doctor and enter the doctor’s name. DR. KELVIN WING-MING LEUNG PRACTICE LOCATION: Toronto AREA OF PRACTICE: General Practice HEARING INFORMATION: Admission; Agreed Statement of Facts; Joint Submission on Penalty On December 11, 2017, the Discipline Committee found that Dr. Leung committed an act of professional misconduct, in that: he failed to maintain the standard of practice of the profession; and, he engaged in 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. 2014 MANDATORY REPORT In December 2014, the College received a mandatory report from a family physician expressing concern about Dr. Leung’s treatment of hemorrhoids in an 18-year-old patient who had attended Dr. Leung’s office for a follow-up for chlamydia. PATIENT A In December 2014, Patient A presented at Dr. Leung’s office with left knee pain. On examining her left hip and lower abdomen, Dr. Leung queried a potential ovarian abnormality. Dr. Leung conducted a vulvar, pelvic and visual peri-anal examination of Patient A, during which he noted an internal hemor- rhoid, which he proceeded to incise and cauterize. In January 2015, following Patient A’s complaint, the medical expert retained by the College opined that while the recommended plan to use anti-in- flammatories and to participate in physical therapy seemed appropriate, Dr. Leung did not meet the standard of practice of the profession in his care of Patient A including: poor record-keeping, examining the patient’s lower abdomen when not indicated, a pelvic exam when not indicated, a peri-anal exam in an asymptomatic patient, and subsequently recom- mending and performing a hemorrhoid treatment that was neither indicated nor evidence-based. The medical expert concluded that Dr. Leung’s treatment of Patient A fell below the standard of practice of the medical profession and that providing this patient with a non-indicated pelvic exam and subsequently a non-indicated hemorrhoid treatment exposed this patient to harm. He further concluded that Dr. Leung`s knowledge and judgment with respect to hemorrhoid treatments and performing non indi- cated peri-anal and pelvic exams falls well below the standard of practice of the profession. INVESTIGATION When advised of the investigation and the potential concerns regarding the appropriateness of his hem- orrhoid procedures, Dr. Leung voluntarily stopped performing all hemorrhoid procedures. He has not performed any hemorrhoid procedures since that time and has agreed not to perform any such proce- dures in the future. Upon reviewing 10 female patients’ charts, the ISSUE 4, 2018 DIALOGUE 69