Dialogue Volume 15 Issue 1 2019 - Page 60

DISCIPLINE SUMMARIES dishonourable or unprofessional. The Committee also found that Dr. Mitchell is incompetent. The Committee found that Dr. Mitchell engaged in disgraceful dishonourable or unprofessional conduct in his care and treatment of Patient A. Dr. Mitchell verbally abused Patient A including: use of profanity; repeatedly threatening to terminate therapy; allow- ing and at times encouraging crossing of professional boundaries through extensive text messaging which blurred the doctor-patient relationship; and failing to properly manage transference and counter-transference. He made comments of a sexual nature. In engaging in this conduct, Dr. Mitchell disrespected Patient A and did not act in her best interest. The Committee determined that Dr. Mitchell engaged in behaviour or remarks of a sexual nature. The behaviour and remarks were not appropriate to the medical services that Dr. Mitchell was providing to Patient A. The Committee found that the evidence of Patient A, the clinical records, Dr. Mitchell’s own admissions and the medical expert’s opinion established that Dr. Mitchell made comments of a sexual nature to Patient A and therefore engaged in sexual abuse. The Committee also found that Dr. Mitchell is in- competent in that he demonstrated a lack of knowl- edge, skill or judgment in his care of Patient A, and demonstrated disregard for her welfare. The medical expert made reference to the patient’s diagnosis and stated that treatment should have been driven by the diagnosis. Dr. Mitchell’s record made no reference to the patient having a borderline personality disorder other than as opined by psychi- atric consultations completed by another physician in March 2010 (this consult being requested by Patient A’s family doctor, not Dr Mitchell, and reassessed in September 2011). Patient A testified that Dr. Mitch- ell had told her that she did not have a diagnosis of borderline personality disorder. Dr. Mitchell’s chart contained one mention of borderline personality disorder, in August 2013. Chronologically, this was at the end of her therapy sessions with him which began in 2009. Dr. Mitchell did not appear to under- stand the nature of his patient’s mental disorder that brought her to treatment. The Committee found that Dr. Mitchell’s lack of 60 DIALOGUE ISSUE 1, 2019 knowledge, skill or judgment is of such nature that he is incompetent. The Committee finds that he poses a risk of harm to patients. ORDER The Discipline Committee ordered the revocation of Dr. Mitchell’s certificate of registration and a repri- mand. The Committee also ordered that Dr. Mitchell reimburse the College for funding provided to pa- tients under the program required under section 85.7 of the Health Professions Procedural Code, and post an irrevocable letter of credit or other security accept- able to the College in the amount of $16,060.00. Dr. Mitchell was also ordered to pay hearing costs to the College in the amount of $54,180.00. 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. Mitchell waived his right to an appeal and the Committee administered the public reprimand. DR. AYOOB MOSSANEN PRACTICE LOCATION: Toronto AREA OF PRACTICE: Neurology HEARING INFORMATION: Admission; Agreed Statement of Facts; Joint Submission on Penalty On August 10, 2018, the Discipline Committee found that Dr. Mossanen committed an act of pro- fessional misconduct, in that he has 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, and in that he has contravened a term, condition or limitation on his certificate of registration. Dr. Mossanen practised at the Pain & Disability Assessment Centre in Toronto until his resignation on October 26, 2017. The Committee found that Dr. Mossanen: (a) failed to provide adequate explanation to Patient