discipline summaries
lifestyle modifications for the management of hypercholesterolemia and hypertension for his patients and
for supporting the SDA claim for his patients.
Reasons for Penalty
The Committee concluded that the jointly proposed
order was appropriate in the circumstances of this
case. In considering the proposed penalty, the Committee concluded that it properly expresses disapproval
of Dr. Otto’s behaviour in this matter; that its requirements address the need to maintain public confidence
in the profession and its ability to self-regulate; that
it protects the public; that it acts both generally and
specifically as a deterrent; and that it affords an opportunity for rehabilitation of the member.
With the goal of protecting the public, t he Committee notes that Dr. Otto’s transgression related only
to the issue of Special Diet Allowance (SDA) applications. In this regard, the requirement for monitoring
and co-signing such applications as a condition on Dr.
Otto’s certificate of registration provides permanent
oversight and accountability.
The fine imposed and the suspension of Dr. Otto’s
certificate of registration for two months is an appropriate response to the seriousness of the misconduct
and acts as both specific deterrence for Dr. Otto and
general deterrence for the profession.
The Committee determined that the completion
of an educational program in ethics and the medical
record-keeping course, the latter of which has already
been completed by Dr. Otto, combined with the
requirement to consult the assigned monitor on each
occasion an SDA is considered, provide significant
opportunity for rehabilitation and learning as well as
public protection.
The Committee took into account a number of aggravating and mitigating factors identified as pertinent
to the jointly proposed penalty. Aggravating factors
included the seriousness of the matter, the demonstrated lack of integrity, personal financial gain and
persistence, to some degree, after the matter had been
addressed by a Ministry review and the findings of an
expert retained by the College. With respect to mitigating factors, the Committee took into account that
Dr. Otto has no prior disciplinary history; he admitted
to professional misconduct; has accepted responsibility
for his poor judgment and breach of professional stan-
48
Dialogue Issue 3, 2016
dards; has assisted the College in avoiding a prolonged
and contested hearing; and has cooperated with the
College throughout. The Committee also notes that
Dr. Otto’s career involves serving a significantly disadvantaged population.
In summary, the Discipline Committee ordered the
following: a public reprimand; a two-month suspension on Dr. Otto’s certificate of registration; terms,
conditions and limitation on Dr. Otto’s certificate of
registration that include successful completion of an
ethics program, limitations on his use of Special Diet
Allowance forms, unannounced inspections of his
practice, monitoring of his OHIP billings; payment
of a fine to the Minister of Finance in the amount of
$10,000; and payment to the College for costs in the
amount of $4,460.
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. Otto waived his
right to an appeal and the Committee administered the
public reprimand.
Text of Public Reprimand
It’s always regrettable to be in a position of having to deliver a reprimand to any member of the profession. The
Committee has heard evidence of a long record of service
to a disadvantaged community, and it is particularly
troubling to hear that you’ve dishonoured the profession
after such a long and dedicated history of service.
The medical system is based on trust, both in discharging your obligations to your patients, and in your
role as a health-system advocate. You have failed to
uphold the Standards of the Profession. To label this
conduct as unprofessional significantly understates its
severity. By billing inappropriately and improperly you
have disgraced yourself and the profession.
It is hoped by understanding and accepting this censure by the profession and from your colleagues; you will
conscientiously discharge the conditions of your penalty
and not be seen again in this chamber.