Dialogue Volume 10 Issue 1 2014 | Page 47

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