Dialogue Volume 10 Issue 1 2014 | Page 46

DISCIPLINE SUMMARIES geons of Canada (the “Royal College”). The Committee did not accept, however, that this indicated they were not received as the subsequent two communications which were found, albeit long after they were sent, bore the same office address. The Committee found particularly egregious the fact that, with respect to the previous order of the Discipline Committee, Dr. Newell failed to notify either the College or her practice monitor of her return to practice, resulting in an unmonitored practice of several months’ duration. In mitigation, the Committee heard that Dr. Newell acted with alacrity when she realized that she no longer had the credentials to practise as a specialist (although her lack of compliance with her continuing education requirements should not have come as a revelation to her). She voluntarily notified the Royal College of her error and her patients, lawyers, courts, etc. of the fact that her fellowship had been rescinded, at the cost of some personal effort and embarrassment. Likewise, she promptly notified her practice monitor of the resumption of her practice, but only when prompted by an inquiry from the College, several months after she ought to have done so. Further, the Committee heard that no actual, as opposed to potential, harm resulted from her misconduct and that the monitor found no problem with any of the patient charts that he reviewed from the period when her practice was unmonitored. The fact that Dr. Newell disregarded, however inadvertently, an undertaking to the College that she would notify both the College and her practice monitor when she resumed her practice, when she must have known that she was “under the microscope” was deserving, in the opinion of the Committee, of a significant penalty, even if taken alone. It was therefore the Committee’s view that the three-month suspension is appropriate and should serve notice, to Dr. Newell, to the profession and to the public that it is fundamental to the concept of self-governance that the College should be able to rely implicitly on undertakings made to it. The continuance of the terms, limitations and conditions on Dr. Newell’s practice would appear to be essential for public protection. With respect to rehabilitation, the Committee expects that the repercussions stemming from her misconduct and this penalty will encourage Dr. Newell to engage in better practice management. 48 DIALOGUE • Issue 1, 2014 The reprimand represents a personal and very public expression to Dr. Newell of the Committee’s and profession’s disappointment in her misconduct. Lastly, the award of costs of $3,650 to the College is the standard tariff rate for a one-day hearing and is appropriate in the circumstances. Order The Committee ordered and directed that: 1.  e Registrar suspend Dr. Newell’s certificate of Th registration for a period of three months. 2.  e terms, conditions and limitations currently on Th Dr. Newell’s certificate of registration shall remain in full force and effect. 3.  r. Newell appear before it to be reprimanded. D 4.  r. Newell pay costs to the College in the amount of D $3,650. At the conclusion of the hearing, Dr. Newell waived her right to an appeal and the Committee administered the public reprimand. DR. ELEAZAR HUMBERTO NORIEGA Practice Location: Toronto Practice Area: Pediatrics, Family Medicine Hearing Information: Contested Hearing, (Four Days) On February 28, 2013, the Discipline Committee found that Dr. Noriega committed an act of professional 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 disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional. Dr. Noriega denied the allegation. In 2009, Dr. Noriega was referred to the Discipline Committee for allegations, including sexual abuse and sexual impropriety. On July 22, 2009, Dr. Noriega entered into an undertaking with the College and undertook, among other things, not to engage in any professional encounters with female patients except in the presence of his practice monitor. He undertook to post a sign in his waiting room and in each of his examination rooms notifying the public of this practice restriction. Dr. Noriega’s practice monitor also entered