discipline summaries
victim statement from the husband of a patient and recognized that the lives of several other victims were likewise devastated by the disgraceful behaviour of Dr. Tadros. The Committee accepts that such behaviour also brings into disrepute the reputation of the profession as a whole. Revocation conveys to both the public and the profession that a person such as Dr. Tadros cannot remain a member of the profession. The Committee was made aware of two previous decisions of the Discipline Committee against Dr. Tadros. In 1990, he pleaded guilty to falsifying a letter of recommendation in an application for hospital privileges. In 2010, the Discipline Committee found that Dr. Tadros had committed an act of professional misconduct, in that he had repeatedly refused to produce transcripts of his clinical notes to aid a College investigation of his practice under section 75( a) of the Health Professions Procedural Code. The Committee was struck by the similarities of these two past examples of misconduct to the current cases in the lack of integrity demonstrated in the conduct of Dr. Tadros. Dr. Tadros displayed a blatant disregard for the authority of the College as a self-regulatory body by his failure to comply with the terms of two section 37 Orders. As examples of Dr. Tadros’ disregard for the authority of the College as a regulatory body, the Committee considered as aggravating factors in the current case:
• With regard to Patient A, he initially failed to produce the medical chart to the College and then provided a falsified chart;
• He lied to the College, denying a patient relationship;
• He refused to transcribe the medical chart;
• He threatened Patient A and demanded that she lie to the College about the doctor-patient relationship.
• With regard to Patient B, Dr. Tadros lied to the College regarding the existence of a doctor-patient relationship, suggesting instead that Patient B and her husband were threatening him;
• He asked his assistant to lie to the College regarding the nature of his relationship with Patient B;
• He omitted many entries in his transcription of his medical records that were requested by the College;
• Dr. Tadros breached the section 37 Order dated July 15, 2014, that restricted him from having professional encounters with any female person except in the presence of a monitor;
• Dr. Tadros then breached a subsequent section 37 Order, dated September 16, 2014, that restricted him from having any professional encounter or interaction with any female person;
• He did this by performing botox injections at a medical spa, without advising the spa owners of his two section 37 restrictions.
The Committee was appalled at the rapidity and the multiplicity of instances of flagrant flouting of College requests and restrictions. College requests for information and any subsequent restrictions are the essential components of the self-regulatory responsibility of the College. An individual physician with the privilege to practise must accept the authority of the regulatory body without hesitation and without attempts to deceive. Any breaches are considered very seriously by the Committee, as such disregard for the College risks the protection of the public and the confidence that the public must have in the College’ s self-regulatory role. The only mitigating factor in this case is the admission of the facts, arrived at the day prior to the hearing. This admission saved the time and some of the expense of a lengthy hearing. Most importantly, it saved the witnesses from the need to testify. Dr. Tadros has repeatedly demonstrated that he is ungovernable as a professional, to an extent rarely seen by the Discipline Committee. The penalty of immediate revocation will serve as a general deterrent for the profession and will demonstrate to the profession and the public that the disgraceful behaviours exhibited by Dr. Tadros will not be tolerated. Regarding costs, the Committee found that having regard to the serious findings made of professional misconduct, Dr. Tadros should pay $ 31,510 of the costs incurred by the College in this case. In summary, the Committee ordered the following: revocation of Dr. Tadros’ certificate of registration effective immediately; a reprimand; reimbursement
66
Dialogue Issue 2, 2016