DISCIPLINE SUMMARIES
into an undertaking on July 22, 2009. It required the
practice monitor to be present for all of Dr. Noriega’s
professional encounters with female patients.
that disregard of a College undertaking is a serious act
of professional misconduct which calls for a significant
penalty.
Dr. Noriega engaged in professional misconduct based on
the following failures to comply with his undertaking:
After careful consideration, the Committee’s decision
is that a six-month
Full decisions are available online
suspension of the
at www.cpso.on.ca.
member’s certificate of
Select Doctor Search and enter
registration is approprithe doctor’s name.
ate taking into account
the facts in this case.
The Committee concluded that this penalty meets the appropriate penalty
principles and is consistent with prior decisions of the
Discipline Committee, recognizing that each case is
decided on its own unique facts.
• r. Noriega failed to post the required sign in the
D
waiting room, which includes the obligation to take
reasonable steps to ensure that the sign remains
posted;
• r. Noriega failed to post the required sign in an
D
examination room, including covering up the required
sign with a framed picture;
• r. Noriega failed to have a chaperone present
D
throughout the entirety of his patient encounters
between July 2009 and February 2010; and
• r. Noriega misled the College’s compliance investigaD
tor in February 2010 when he told her that he doesn’t
see female patients in the consultation room.
Conclusion
A fundamental aspect of the College’s ability to govern
itself is its ability to trust that its members will abide
by their undertakings. In contrast, Dr. Noriega took a
cavalier approach to the undertaking. He adapted terms
of the undertaking to appease his “humiliation” over
the process. He modified terms to suit his own interest
and convenience. He compromised the College’s ability
to monitor his compliance with the undertaking. At
the hearing, he failed to see his admitted breaches as
unprofessional.
Order
The Discipline Committee ordered and directed that:
1. e Registrar suspend Dr. Noriega’s certificate of
Th
registration for a period of six months.
2. r. Noriega attend before the Committee to be
D
reprimanded.
On August 22, 2013, the Discipline Committee
ordered Dr. Noriega to pay costs to the College in the
amount of $14,600 by August 31, 2014.
In making its penalty decision, the Committee accepts
that a reprimand by a professional’s governing body can
be a significant punishment. A reprimand in this matter
is fully supported by the nature of the misconduct.
The Committee has concluded that a six-month suspension of Dr. Noriega’s certificate of registration is the
appropriate penalty in this case for the reasons set out
below.
Both the reprimand and a six-month suspension of Dr.
Noriega’s certificate of registration address the principles
of specific and general deterrence.
This penalty will demonstrate to the member and the
membership that disregard for an undertaking given by
a member to the College will be dealt with severely. The
public will be protected by the strong and clear message
DIALOGUE • Issue 1, 2014
49