discipline summaries
In 2014 , Dr . Romanescu provided medical records to each of the nine complainants at no cost . Dr . Romanescu also provided a copy of her medical records requested by all other patients who requested them at no cost following the closure of her office in November 2013 . In addition , Dr . Romanescu mailed out hundreds of test results , consultation notes and other medical records that she received following the closure of her office at no cost .
Reasons for Penalty In considering the appropriateness of a proposed penalty , the Committee must take into account the governing principles that underlie the imposition of penalties , the most important of which is that the penalty must protect the public . The penalty must denounce the misconduct , be proportionate to the misconduct , and maintain the public ’ s confidence in the profession and its ability to self-regulate in the public interest . The Committee must also consider whether the proposed penalty serves to provide specific deterrence to the member and general deterrence to the profession at large . Where appropriate , a penalty should aim to provide rehabilitation for the member as well . In coming to its decision on penalty , the Committee should consider any aggravating factors as well as any mitigating factors . The Committee agreed that the penalty proposed in the joint submission was appropriate and was in accordance with the above-stated principles . In considering the proposed penalty , the Committee was mindful of the seriousness of the finding , but also noted mitigating factors . Dr . Romanescu cooperated with the College in arriving at an Agreed Statement of Facts and Admission , which spared numerous potential witnesses from having to attend to testify at a hearing . Dr . Romanescu also cooperated in the administrative steps required to provide many patients with their records within a few months of their requests , although this did not occur until after the referral to discipline . Another mitigating factor is that Dr . Romanescu has health issues , which are being dealt with , and she is complying with the Physician Health Program ( PHP ) and the undertaking with the College that she signed on September 4 , 2011 . The Committee considered it to be an aggravating factor that in May 2010 , Dr . Romanescu had been cautioned by the Inquiries , Complaints and Reports Committee ( ICRC ) for similar conduct : failing to provide proper notice , and to have in place a plan to ensure provision of care for her patients , when she had to take a sudden leave of absence from her practice . Dr . Romanescu should have been well aware of each detail of the College ’ s policy Practice Management Considerations for Physicians Who Cease to Practise , Take an Extended Leave of Absence or Close Their Practice Due to Relocation , the key portions of which were set out in the ICRC ’ s May 2010 decision . Subsequently , the College received nine specific patient complaints and numerous additional contacts from patients . These patients and their families suffered stress , anxiety as well as genuine health risks as a result of Dr . Romanescu ’ s inattention to the College ’ s policy . The Committee was satisfied that the terms , conditions and limitations on Dr . Romanescu ’ s certificate of registration that were proposed in the joint submission , would adequately protect the public . Of most importance , Dr . Romanescu will be able to practise only in a group setting acceptable to the College . This addresses directly Dr . Romanescu ’ s failure to make provision for her absence , which gave rise to the complaints against her , and should provide protection against future problems in the event that Dr . Romanescu again has to close her practice suddenly . The requirement that Dr . Romanescu undergo a practice assessment upon her return to practice ( should she return after December 1 , 2015 she would do so pursuant to the College ’ s policy on Re-Entering Practice ) also assures public protection by ensuring that Dr . Romanescu ’ s skills and practices are at an acceptable level . These significant terms to protect the public should maintain public confidence in the profession ’ s ability to self-regulate . The public reprimand provides specific deterrence to Dr . Romanescu as it affords the Committee an opportunity to clearly express its view of the misconduct to Dr . Romanescu . It also serves as a general deterrent to the profession in its denunciation of the misconduct in which Dr . Romanescu engaged . The proposed one-month suspension is appropriate and a serious sanction that will also serve as a specific deterrent to Dr . Romanescu . It expresses the Committee ’ s serious concern with the repeated nature of Dr .
58
Dialogue Issue 2 , 2016