Dialogue Volume 12 Issue 2 2016 | Page 59

discipline summaries Romanescu’s conduct, and has both reputational and financial impact on her. It also sends a message to the profession that such conduct will not be tolerated. It is within the Committee’s discretion to award costs in an appropriate case. The Committee agreed that it is warranted in this case to award the College the costs of one day of hearing. In summary, the Committee ordered the following: a public reprimand, a one-month suspension of Dr. Romanescu’s certificate of registration; terms, conditions and limitations on Dr. Romanescu’s certificate of registration, including working in a group setting, a practice assessment and abiding by the Re-entering Practice policy if she returns to practice on or after December 1, 2015; and payment to the College 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. Romanescu waived her right to an appeal and the Committee administered the public reprimand. Text of Public Reprimand Dr. Romanescu, while recognizing the challenges you are having with your health, the Committee is dismayed that you did not learn from the caution given to you by the College in 2010. The College policy regarding practice management during leaves of absence is explicit, and has been carefully crafted to protect the interests of your patients in particular, and the confidence of the public in our profession’s ability to self-regulate. By failing to establish a system of office administration during your absence, and to make arrangements for the ongoing care of your patients, you submitted numerous patients and their family members to significant anxiety and stress, as well as genuine health risks to your patients. We expect that the suspension will send a strong message to you that your professional reputation has been tarnished. The Committee sincerely hopes that your future in our profession will benefit from the terms imposed by the penalty, and that you may be able to rebuild yourself as an honourable member of our profession. DR. WEE LIM SIM Practice Location: Ottawa Practice Area: Obstetrics and Gynecology Hearing Information: Agreed Statement of Facts, Admission, Joint Submission on Penalty On June 2, 2015, the Discipline Committee found that Dr. Sim committed an act of professional misconduct, in that he failed to maintain the standard of practice of the profession in his care of 24 patients, and in his infection control practices and instrument reprocessing. The Committee also found that Dr. Sim engaged in acts or omissions relevant to the practice of medicine that, having regard to all the circumstances, would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional, including: inadequate supervision of members of his staff; improper delegation of responsibilities to his staff; inappropriate electronic communications with patients; inappropriate billing to the Ontario Health Insurance Plan; and his failure to refer Patient A for a second opinion. Dr. Sim admitted to the allegations. In October 2012, the College received a letter of complaint from Patient A in which she expressed concerns about the sanitary conditions of Dr. Sim’s office, and about Dr. Sim pressuring her to have an endometrial biopsy in the office for $20 when she advised that she wished to have it performed elsewhere. A Medical Inspector retained by the College concluded that the complaint raised the issue of a lack of proper communication. The Medical Inspector concluded that Dr. Sim showed a lack of judgment by failing to refer Patient A to another obstetrician/ gynecologist for a second opinion concerning her endometrial biopsy and whether it should be performed in an office setting or in a hospital with a hysteroscopy and D&C. In May 2011, the clinic at which Dr. Sim engaged Full decisions are available online at www.cpso.on.ca. Select Doctor Search and enter the doctor’s name. Issue 2, 2016 Dialogue Issue2_16.indd 59 59 2016-06-16 12:27 PM