discipline summaries
Is Dr. Chung incompetent as defined under the
RHPA?
To make a finding of incompetence under s. 52(1) of
the Code, the Committee must be satisfied that the
member’s professional care of a patient displayed a
lack of knowledge, skill or judgment of a nature or to
an extent that demonstrates that the member is unfit
to practise or that his practice should be restricted.
At issue in this matter is being misguided over scrupulousness, which resulted in excessive examinations
in a number of cases. Unquestionably, Dr. Chung
exceeded reasonable limits as reflected in the Committee’s findings. The Committee concluded that Dr.
Chung, a product of older teaching, did not modify
his practice as he should have. Out of this was born a
habit which was difficult for him to discard. He was
wedded to a medical model of care focusing on illness and subordinated patient sensitivities to obtain
every bit of information he could. This simply is not
acceptable practice today.
The Committee was most concerned with Dr.
Chung’s dated practice of repeated examinations in
pregnancy and his cavalier attitude towards examining virginal females. While attempting to serve his
patients, he was thoughtless, insensitive and disrespectful. This is a significant shortcoming.
The Committee concluded that although Dr.
Chung’s judgment was not always appropriate to the
particular circumstances of his patients, these failings
did not reach the level necessary to support a finding
of incompetence. Furthermore, Dr. Chung demonstrated some insight in his evidence in testifying that
he would not do today the number of examinations
that he did in the past.
Reasons for Penalty
Dr. Chung was a family physician whose practice was
predominantly office gynecology and obstetrics. Dr.
Chung resigned from the College of Physicians and
Surgeons of Ontario effective June 1, 2012.
It is accepted by the Committee that the penalty
order should be commensurate with the member’s
misconduct and reflect accepted penalty principles.
The Committee is of the view that unequivocal
denunciation of the specific misconduct, general deterrence and protection of the public are of particular
importance and directly apply in this matter.
The Committee was troubled by Dr. Chung’s
exploitation of his position as a trusted family physician and his failure to take into consideration patient sensitivities. Patient vulnerabilities, compliant
nature and inexperience enabled him to act far more
intrusively than accepted standards would allow. An
example of the seriousness of the misconduct from
the broader Section 75 investigation is Patient #17.
Dr. Chung repeatedly acceded to a mother’s request
for “virginity” testing of her developmentally challe