of the accident. The Committee’s view, based on her
evidence, was that when she spoke of being depressed,
what she meant was that she was unhappy with the
limitations on her lifestyle that she experienced as a
result of the accident.
The Committee was satisfied from Patient A’s testimony that she was an experienced patient who knew
what services and medications she needed, and where
to get them. As such, the Committee viewed her attendances at Dr. BCD’s office as opportunistic. It was
clear that Patient A continued to see Dr. G regularly
and concurrently for all other aspects of her care. This
included arranging investigations and treatment for
gynecological problems throughout 2010, both during and after the termination of the physician-patient
relationship with Dr. BCD.
The Committee concluded that after the agreed termination of the professional relationship Patient A was
not vulnerable or in a position to be exploited by Dr.
BCD. The Committee found that Patient A during
this period was an independent, capable and motivated woman, as evidenced by her ability to continue
pursuing higher education while looking after her
children. This was entirely consistent with her being
the one to initiate the change in her relationship with
Dr. BCD as she testified she did. She made her own
decisions, as evidenced by the fact that she did not
take the medications Dr. BCD prescribed for her and
did not follow up on the referrals that he made for her
to other practitioners. She was not dependent on Dr.
BCD for her care, as evidenced by the fact that she
had her own family doctor and often sought multiple
opinions from different physicians.
In conclusion, the Committee was satisfied that, on
the facts of this case, the personal relationship between
Dr. BCD and Patient A evolved slowly and over a reasonable amount of time. Having regard to the circumstances of this case, the Committee found no evidence
of professional misconduct.
Full decisions are available online at www.cpso.on.ca.
Select Doctor Search and enter the doctor’s name.
Issue 3, 2015 Dialogue
71