discipline summaries
DR. BEHNAZ YAZDANFAR
Practice Location: Toronto
Practice Area: Family Medicine (Cosmetic Medicine)
Hearing Information: Agreed Statement of Facts,
Admission, Joint Submission on Penalty
On May 26, 2014, the Discipline Committee found
that Dr. Yazdanfar committed acts of professional misconduct, in that she failed to maintain the standard of
practice of the profession, and she 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. The Discipline Committee also found that Dr. Yazdanfar was incompetent with
respect to her care of Patient A. Dr. Yazdanfar admitted
to the allegations.
With respect to Patient A, in August 2009, the College received a letter of complaint about two liposuction procedures performed on her by Dr. Yazdanfar in
February and April 2008. Dr. X, an independent expert
retained by the College, concluded that Dr. Yazdanfar
failed to meet the standard of practice of the profession
and displayed a lack of knowledge, skill and judgment in her performance of large-volume liposuction
on Patient A and by failing to appropriately recognize
and respond to the complications that arose from the
procedure.
With respect to Patient B, in July 2009, the College
received a letter of complaint regarding a breast augmentation Dr. Yazdanfar performed on her in October
2007. Dr. X concluded that Dr. Yazdanfar failed to
meet the standard of practice of the profession and
displayed a lack of knowledge, skill and judgment in
failing to appropriately respond to the unsatisfactory
outcome of the breast augmentation procedure. In addition, Dr. Yazdanfar engaged in disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional conduct in her communications
with both patients post-operatively.
Expert Opinion
The Committee reviewed the opinion of the College’s
independent expert regarding Dr. Yazdanfar’s care of the
two patients. In the case of Patient A, the independent
expert provided evidence that the standard of care was
66
Dialogue Issue 3, 2015
not met because the total volume of aspirated material
far exceeded published guidelines and such an operation should not have been done in a private clinic with
no formal hospital link. In addition, Dr. Yazdanfar
failed to recognize that inner thigh liposuction has been
recognized as a high-risk site for vascular injury. In the
case of Patient B, the independent expert stated that
the failure to acknowledge a post-operative deformity
demonstrated a lack of knowledge, skill and a disregard
for the welfare of her patient. Since breast augmentation
is considered an aesthetic operation, patients expect a
result that they are satisfied with. The expert stated that
some sort of additional surgery should have been offered to Patient B given her subsequent concerns.
The Committee noted that Dr. Yazdanfar’s admission
explicitly acknowledged the validity of the expert’s opinions with regard to Patients A and B.
Penalty and Reasons for Penalty
Counsel for the College and counsel for the member
made a joint submission as to an appropriate penalty
and costs order.
The Committee considered the established general
principles in determining the appropriate penalty. These
principles include protection of the public and maintenance of the public trust, maintenance of the integrity
of the profession and the College’s ability to govern the
profession, a denunciation of the conduct, specific and
general deterrence and consideration of the member’s
potential for rehabilitation.
The Committee was provided with the previous
Penalty and Reasons for Penalty of the Discipline Committee imposed on December 21, 2011 (the “First Dr.
Yazdanfar Case”), with regard to Dr. Yazdanfar to assist
in its deliberation and to understand the background to
the joint submission under consideration.
In the First Dr. Yazdanfar Case, the Committee hearing that case held a 67-day hearing which commenced
in July 2009, and resulted in Reasons for Decision
dated May 4, 2011, and the reasons for penalty outlined below. The First Dr. Yazdanfar Case considered
a number of complaints and took a broad look at Dr.
Yazdanfar’s practice. Among other things, the Committee in the First Dr. Yazdanfar Case undertook a careful
review of the circumstances surrounding the death of
one of Dr. Yazdanfar’s patients, Ms. Krista Stryland.
In the First Dr. Yazdanfar Case, the Committee found