discipline summaries but given Dr. Vasovich’ s serious disregard for the College policy over an extended period of time, believes such a suspension is warranted. The proposed order also provides for remediation, in that Dr. Vasovich is required to successfully complete the course“ Understanding Boundaries and Managing the Risks Inherent in the Doctor-Patient Relationship”. Furthermore, the order by the Discipline Committee complements a practice restriction on Dr. Vasovich from an Undertaking, effective May 11, 2015, which among other restrictions, requires Dr. Vasovich to retain a clinical supervisor to review her charts and observe her patient care. This order continues in place until Dr. Vasovich makes an application to the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee for review. The Committee finds that the order it has made, in combination with the practice restriction, will ensure protection of the public through remedial measures and ongoing third party monitoring. The Committee therefore accepted the joint submission on penalty and costs made by the parties. In summary, the Committee ordered the following: a four-month suspension on Dr. Vasovich’ s certificate of registration; a reprimand; successful completion of the Understanding Boundaries and Managing the Risks Inherent in the Doctor-Patient Relationship course; compliance with the College’ s Policy on Practice Management Considerations for Physicians Who Cease to Practise, Take an Extended Leave of Absence or Close Their Practice Due to Relocation and payment to the College in the amount of $ 4,460 for hearing costs.
Order For complete details of the Order, please see the full decision at www. cpso. on. ca. Select Doctor Search and enter the Doctor’ s name.
At the conclusion of the hearing, Dr. Vasovich waived her right to an appeal and the Committee administered a public reprimand.
Text of Public Reprimand Dr. Vasovich, the Panel wishes to express its strong disapproval for the conduct which brought you before us today. The College Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario issues policies to its members in order to protect patients and prevent them from harm. Your flagrant disregard of the College policy not to treat family members is very disturbing. Your behaviour expresses a lack of respect for your governing body and its mandate of protecting the public. Self-governance is a privilege and it is vitally important that all members hold this privilege dear. It is disheartening to see you before us in a disciplinary proceeding following a 40-year career, which was previously unmarred. We trust that the remedies that you have agreed to participate in will prevent any further breaches.
DR. DEF
The Discipline Committee found that the College did not prove that Dr. DEF engaged in conduct or 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. DEF is an ophthalmologist. The service provided by Dr. DEF, which provides context for this case, is Reflex Lens Exchange( RLE). Dr. DEF comanages patients undergoing RLE with optometrists. The College alleged that payments made by Dr. DEF to optometrists in relation to RLE patients were payments for referral, or kickbacks, and therefore constituted professional misconduct. Dr. DEF denied the allegations. It was Dr. DEF’ s position the payments made to optometrists were for information related to patient outcomes after RLE. RLE is a surgical option for patients with cataracts. Regular cataract surgery focuses solely on the lens. RLE differs in that it includes a modification of the cornea and the insertion of a specific valueadded lens. RLE may include cataract extraction and lens replacement, which is an insured service under OHIP. The refractive procedure on the cornea and
Full decisions are available online at www. cpso. on. ca. Select Doctor Search and enter the doctor’ s name.
Issue 2, 2016 Dialogue 69