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