discipline summaries
to the College for funding provided to patients under
the program required under section 85.7 of the Code,
by posting an irrevocable letter of credit or other
security acceptable to the College, by June 30, 2015,
in the amount of $48,100; payment to the College of
$31,510 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. Tadros waived
his right to an appeal and the Committee administered the public reprimand.
Text of Public Reprimand
Dr. Tadros, your misconduct must be deplored in the
strongest possible language. You have demonstrated an
egregious predatory pattern of abusing vulnerable patients and their family members over protracted periods
of time, leaving the victims devastated and distraught as
a result of your despicable behaviour.
The multiplicity of instances of your blatant and
wanton disregard of the College’s increasingly restrictive
efforts to protect your patients from your abuse, have
clearly demonstrated that you completely lack the personal and professional integrity necessary to be governed
by the highest standards expected of our profession by the
public.
Your unwillingness to attend this reprimand in person
demonstrates, yet again, that your sense of responsibility
is sorely lacking. With the revocation of your licence to
practice, you have deservedly lost the privilege to regard
yourself as a member of the profession of medicine, the
profession that you have profoundly disgraced.
Full decisions are available online at www.cpso.on.ca.
Select Doctor Search and enter the doctor’s name.
DR. INGE VASOVICH
Practice Location: Hamilton
Practice Area: General Practice
Hearing Information: Agreed Statement of Facts,
Admission, Joint Submission on Penalty
On June 30, 2015, the Discipline Committee found
that Dr. Vasovich committed an act of professional
misconduct, in that she has engaged in 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. Vasovich admitted to the allegation.
In about 1996, Dr. Vasovich commenced a romantic relationship with Mr. X. When the relationship
commenced, Mr. X was under the care of another
family physician and Dr. Vasovich had never provided medical care to him.
From 1996 to 2003, inclusive, Dr. Vasovich provided medical care to Mr. X, which included referring him to specialists for his various health problems, receiving reports from treating specialists, and
interpreting test results and reports. She is regularly
listed on those reports as Mr. X’s family physician.
There is no evidence that Dr. Vasovich ever performed physical examinations on Mr. X, or provided
psychotherapy to him. Nor did Dr. Vasovich bill
OHIP for any care she provided to him.
Mr. X and Dr. Vasovich’s relationship ended in
February 2005. For a period of time after the relationship ended, Mr. X had another family physician.
However, he returned to Dr. Vasovich who remained
involved in his care. At various points until Mr. X’s
death, she referred him to specialists, prescribed and
renewed medications for him, received, reviewed
and interpreted consult reports and test results, and
attended appointments with him. Towards the end of
Mr. X’s life, Dr. Vasovich was in daily communication with his personal support workers, and provided
them with instructions on his medications.
Dr. Vasovich also prepared a cumulative patient
profile and a chronology in respect of Mr. X’s care.
Issue 2, 2016 Dialogue
Issue2_16.indd 67
67
2016-06-16 12:27 PM