discipline summaries
DR. BERTRAM WING KING
Practice Location: Toronto
Practice Area: General Practice
Hearing Information: Statement of Agreed Facts,
Plea of No Contest, Joint Submission on Penalty
On October 14, 2015, the Discipline Committee
found that Dr. Wing King committed an act of professional misconduct, in that he has 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. Wing King did not contest the allegation.
Patient A first attended Dr. Wing King’s medical practice in 2012 and returned for a total of five
medical appointments between 2012 and 2013. She
attended on Dr. Wing King in the fall of 2013 for
treatment of a facial rash. Dr. Wing King prescribed a
cream for treatment of the rash. Patient A returned for
her scheduled follow up appointment one week later.
During that appointment, Dr. Wing King noted that
the patient’s facial rash was resolving and he provided
reassurance in this regard. Patient A was concerned
about the possibility of permanent scarring on her
face. At the conclusion of the appointment, Dr. Wing
King kissed the patient on the forehead and commented, “You look pretty now.” His conduct was at all
times intended to be supportive of Patient A. Patient
A reported that the kiss was “fatherly” but that it was
inappropriate in the context of a medical appointment.
Patient A did not return to see Dr. Wing King.
Reasons for Penalty
The Committee considered the joint submission
and determined that the proposed penalty order was
appropriate. It satisfied the elements of: specific and
general deterrence, denunciation of the misconduct,
protection of the public, maintenance of public confidence in the profession’s ability to self-regulate in the
public interest, and rehabilitation of the physician.
The reprimand reinforces the profession’s values
and standards, and expresses the need for members to
observe and respect behavioural boundaries in the doctor-patient relationship. The penalty serves as specific
deterrence to Dr. Wing King and as general deterrence
to members of the profession generally by sending the
message that making a comment about the appearance
of a patient and kissing her is not acceptable.
The re quirement to participate in a boundaries
course and the reprimand serve to protect the public.
The hearing itself, the reprimand, and the term,
condition and limitation imposed on Dr. Wing King’s
certificate of registration, all serve to uphold the principle of self-regulation and the values of the profession
and meet the need for appropriate remediation.
The Committee considered a number of mitigating
factors in this matter: Dr. Wing King has practised
for over four decades with an unblemished record;
his pleading no contest saved the complainant from
testifying and the College the expense of a lengthier
hearing; and he voluntarily registered for the boundaries course. The Committee took into account that a
number of colleagues provided powerful testimonials;
and through counsel, Dr. Wing King expressed his
embarrassment and contrition, indicating he looked
upon the hearing and its consequences as an opportunity for him to learn to be vigilant in observing
boundaries in his relationship with his patients.
The Committee also decided that this was an appropriate case to order that Dr. Wing King pay costs for a
single day of hearing at the tariff rate.
In summary, the Discipline Committee ordered: a
reprimand, a course on Understanding Boundaries,
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. Wing King waived
his right to an appeal and the Committee administered
the public reprimand.
Full decisions are available online at www.cpso.on.ca.
Select Doctor Search and enter the doctor’s name.
Issue 3, 2016 Dialogue
49