discipline summaries
documents pursuant to such statutes and/
or regulations as may come into force at a
future time (collectively, “Marihuana Documents”), or participating in any way in the
preparation, issuance or support of Marihuana Documents; or
iii. The counselling, assessment or treatment of
patients in relation to cannabis.
c) Dr. Saul shall inform the College of each and
every location where he practices including,
within 15 days of this Order, and shall inform
the College of any and all new practice locations within 15 days of commencing practice at
that location;
d) For an indefinite period of time, Dr. Saul
shall submit to, and not interfere with, unannounced inspections of his practice location(s)
and patient records by a College representative
for the purposes of monitoring his compliance
with this Order; and
e) Dr. Saul shall consent to the monitoring of his
OHIP billings and cooperate with inspections
of his practice and patient charts by College
representatives for the purpose of monitoring
and enforcing his compliance with the terms of
this Order.
4. Dr. Saul pay costs to the College in the amount of
$4,460, within 30 days of the date of this Order.
At the conclusion of the hearing, Dr. Saul waived his right
to an appeal and the Committee administered the public
reprimand.
Full decisions are available online at www.cpso.on.ca.
Select Doctor Search and enter the doctor’s name.
78
DR. MILE SAVIC
Practice Location: Belleville
Practice Area: Family Medicine
Hearing Information: Agreed Statement of Facts,
Admission, Agreed Statement of Facts on Penalty,
Joint Submission on Penalty
On February 19, 2015, the Discipline Committee
found that Dr. Savic committed acts of professional
misconduct, in that he failed to maintain the standard of practice of the profession; had a conflict of
interest; and engaged in 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. Savic admitted to the allegations.
In 2008, allegations of professional misconduct
against Dr. Savic were referred to the Discipline
Committee. Those allegations were withdrawn on the
basis of an undertaking dated November 22, 2010.
The terms of the undertaking included requirements
for Dr. Savic to practise under the guidance of a
clinical supervisor and to abide by the recommendations of the clinical supervisor. Dr. X was Dr. Savic’s
clinical supervisor from November 22, 2010 until
approximately April 2012. Dr. X made recommendations to Dr. Savic for practice improvements. Dr.
X advised the College, through his reports, that Dr.
Savic was not complying with his recommendations.
Dr. Savic failed to adequately implement the recommendations of Dr. X. He engaged in disgraceful, dishonourable and unprofessional conduct by breaching
this term of his undertaking. Since approximately
April 2012, Dr. Y has been Dr. Savic’s clinical supervisor. Dr. Y reported to the College that Dr. Savic
implemented Dr. Y’s recommendations.
After receiving patient complaints and supervision
reports from Dr. X, the College began an investigation into Dr. Savic’s practice.
Dr. Z provided an independent opinion to the College regarding Dr. Savic’s care and treatment of patients. Dr. Z concluded that Dr. Savic did not meet
the standard of practice of the profession that would
be reasonably expected of a competent practitioner
in his field of practice. Of the 25 charts reviewed, 20
Dialogue Issue 4, 2015
Issue4_15.indd 78
2015-12-16 9:36 AM