DISCIPLINE SUMMARIES
Order
The Committee ordered and directed that:
1. r. Moore appear before the panel to be reprimanded.
D
2. he Registrar impose the following term, condition
t
and limitation on the certificate of registration of Dr.
Moore:
(i) Dr. Moore must successfully complete, at her own
expense, the College’s Understanding Boundaries
in Managing the Risks Inherent in the DoctorPatient Relationship course, within 12 months of
the date of this Order.
3. r. Moore pay to the College costs in the amount of
D
$3,650, within 30 days of the date of this Order.
At the conclusion of the hearing, Dr. Moore waived her
right to an appeal and the Committee administered the
public reprimand.
Dr. Newell breached the August 21, 2008 Order of the
Discipline Committee, which required her to practise
under the supervision of a practice monitor to review
her charts.
In February of 2010, Dr. Newell advised the CPSO
that she was going to be on a medical leave and undertook to inform the CPSO when she returned. On April
6, 2010, Dr. Newell returned to work but failed to notify the CPSO or her practice monitor. In response to
inquiries from the CPSO in January 2011, Dr. Newell
admitted she had been working since April and had not
informed the CPSO or
her monitor. The moniFull decisions are available online
tor reviewed her charts
at www.cpso.on.ca.
on February 15, 2011,
Select Doctor Search and enter
and found they were
the doctor’s name.
all complete and up to
date.
Reasons for Penalty
Dr. Emilie Novak Newell
Practice Location: London
Counsel for the College and counsel for the member
made a joint submission as to an appropriate penalty
and cost order.
Dr. Newell did not contest the allegation.
The Committee was reminded of the principles which
guide the crafting of a penalty order. Paramount among
these is protection of the public. Other principles
include specific deterrence, in an effort to prevent recurrence of the member’s misconduct, general deterrence,
as an indication to the profession of the College’s
determination to discourage similar misconduct, the
need to maintain public confidence in the integrity of
the profession and the process of self-governance and,
where appropriate, rehabilitation of the member. The
Committee believed the joint submission on penalty
was appropriate.
Between October 15, 2008 and March 27, 2011, Dr.
Newell mistakenly represented herself as a Fellow of
the Royal College, after her Fellowship was removed
on October 15, 2008, and after she had been sent
correspondence advising her of the termination of her
Fellowship. After March 27, 2011, Dr. Newell stopped
representing herself as a Fellow of the Royal College
and her counsel took steps to notify the CPSO and lawyers, insurers, agencies and firms to whom she provided
specialist services as a physiatrist between October 2008
and March 27, 2011, to advise them that she was not
recognized as a specialist in that time period.
With respect to the facts of the present case, Dr. Newell
had no record of receiving the first two communications from the Royal College of Physicians and Sur-
Practice Area: Physiatry
Hearing Information: Statement of Uncontested Facts –
Plea of No Contest, Joint Submission on Penalty
On September 20, 2012, the Discipline Committee
found that Dr. Newell committed an act of professional
misconduct, in that she 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.
There was no evidence that Dr. Newell’s actions were
willful or fraudulent. The misconduct appears to stem
from sloppy paperwork and insufficient attention to
correspondence. Dr. Newell has a long history, going back nearly 20 years, of problems with inadequate
record-keeping and “communication management,”
which was the subject of a previous finding by the Discipline Committee and which resulted in the current
terms, conditions and limitations on her practice.
DIALOGUE • Issue 1, 2014
47