discipline summaries
above. The College shall review the final assessment and make a determination as to whether
Dr. Manohar can enter unsupervised practice.
ii. Dr. Manohar shall continue with supportive psychotherapy with Dr. A, or with a therapist acceptable to the College, for at least one year from the
date of this Order, or longer if recommended by
the psychotherapist. The psychotherapist shall sign
an undertaking acceptable to the College, shall see
Dr. Manohar on at least a monthly basis and shall
provide quarterly reports to the College.
iii. Dr. Manohar shall cooperate with the College
in the College’s evaluation, by a method to be
determined by the College, of patient satisfaction
with Dr. Manohar’s treatment and care and of
Dr. Manohar’s respect for patient boundaries.
iv. Any person who acts as a preceptor, assessor,
supervisor, or psychotherapist for Dr. Manohar
shall be provided with and read the reinstatement
decision and reasons and Order of the Discipline
Committee, and shall immediately report to the
College any failure to maintain the terms of this
Order.
v. Dr. Manohar shall pay all of the costs of the needs
assessment, competency evaluation, clinical supervision and practice assessment associated with this
re-entry to practice program.
Full decisions are available online at www.cpso.on.ca.
Select Doctor Search and enter the doctor’s name.
DR. JAMAL ALI MOHAMED H. RAKEM
Practice Location: Welland
Practice Area: Orthopedic Surgery
Hearing Information: Admission, Agreed Statement of
Facts, Joint Submission on Penalty
On July 7, 2014, the Discipline Committee found that
Dr. Rakem committed an act of professional misconduct, in that he engaged in the sexual abuse of a patient,
and he 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. Rakem admitted to the allegations.
At the time of the incident, Patient A was 18 years
old and saw Dr. Rakem in 2011 for a sports injury to
her knee. He performed an arthroscopy on Patient A,
diagnosing and treating a partial ACL tear. Dr. Rakem
saw Patient A for follow up in 2012 with her mother.
In the course of an appointment, Dr. Rakem offered to
have Patient A watch him operate the next time he was
on call at the hospital, as she had expressed an interest
in attending medical school. Patient A and her mother
accepted the offer.
A few days later, Dr. Rakem called Patient A, inviting
her to come watch some surgeries. Patient A observed
Dr. Rakem perform a hip replacement surgery and
then accompanied him to another floor to see a patient.
While mounting the stairs, Dr. Rakem patted Patient
A on the buttock and chuckled. Patient A said nothing
at the time. Patient A observed Dr. Rakem perform a
second surgery. After this surgery, Dr. Rakem invited
Patient A to accompany him to his office across the
street from the hospital, where he suggested that he give
her an anatomy lesson. In doing so, Dr. Rakem had
the patient undress down to her t-shirt and underwear,
and then touched and stroked her various body parts,
including in her pelvic region, while naming the muscle
groups. Dr. Rakem asked Patient A to lie face down on
a mattress on the floor. Patient A states that Dr. Rakem
asked her to remove her underwear, which she refused
to do. At that point, Patient A got up and dressed and
told Dr. Rakem that she felt uncomfortable, that it was
getting late and that she wished to go home rather than
observe another surgery.
Penalty and Reasons for Penalty
In considering the joint submission on penalty, the
Committee took into account a number of principles,
including: protection of the public, a desire to express
the abhorrence of the profession regarding Dr. Rakem’s
behaviour, maintenance of public confidence in the
profession and its ability to regulate itself, deterrence,
both of the member himself and of other physicians in
the province, and, to the extent necessary, rehabilitation
of the member. The penalty should be proportionate to
the misconduct.
Issue 3, 2015 Dialogue
57