discipline summaries
A’ s clitoris if he had intended this to happen. The Committee accepts Dr. IJK’ s evidence that the touching described could not have happened accidentally during the abdominal examinations. Dr. IJK was not Ms. A’ s regular physician. She had never been examined by him before. The Committee found that Ms. A most likely genuinely misunderstood the touching in the genital area at Appointment 2 as sexual in nature when, to a reasonable observer or clinician, this would not have been the case. The Committee also finds that her suspicions throughout are likely to have impacted her perceptions. At both Appointment 1 and Appointment 2, third parties were present in the rooms where Ms. A claims the sexual touching occurred: a registered nurse at Appointment 1, who testified she was attentive to Dr. IJK’ s actions in relation to Ms. A; and Ms. A’ s young relative at Appointment 2. While the presence of third parties does not exclude the possibility of sexual touching, it makes it less probable and would suggest risk-taking behaviour on the part of Dr. IJK which, in the view of the Committee, would diminish the likelihood of sexual abuse having occurred. The Committee’ s primary concern about Ms. A’ s evidence was not that, overall, she lacked credibility. The Committee found Ms. A to be an honest witness who had nothing to gain by making a knowingly false complaint, and much to lose, including exposing herself to the stress of these proceedings. The Committee’ s concern on the basis of the evidence is that Ms. A’ s perception of the nature of Dr. IJK’ s touching was not accurate. Her testimony indicated to the Committee that, in some circumstances, she was suspicious of the motivations of others in a way which is reasonably not warranted by the circumstances. These suspicions were evident prior to the first incident of alleged sexual touching, when Dr. IJK told the nurse to turn the ultrasound monitor towards him and away from Ms. A, which led her to wonder whether he was trying to hide something. Ms. A appeared to be unaware how her suspicions could cloud or colour her perceptions. If sexualized touching had taken place during the abdominal examination at Appointment 1, which she told her husband it did, it is implausible that she was not suspicious at all when she returned for Appointment 2, which she told the Committee. The Committee finds her evidence not reliable with respect to the touching by Dr. IJK in his examinations. The Committee is of the view that Ms. A perceived a sexual aspect to the touching that is not objectively indicated. Dr. IJK may have conducted the examinations in question in a perfunctory and insensitive fashion; this would be consistent with his demeanour as a witness. He may not have been particularly careful about the exact placement of his fingers during the pelvic examination at Appointment 2. The Committee considered that his actions could have been misunderstood by Ms. A, who was in an emotionally vulnerable state, and who was unfamiliar with Dr. IJK and was questioning his motivations. These conclusions do, in the view of the Committee, seem consistent with the totality of the evidence. The Committee does not accept that there is sufficiently reliable evidence to support a finding of sexual abuse. It is not possible for the Committee to know, based on the evidence, precisely how Dr. IJK touched Ms. A on the dates in question. The College has the burden, however, of proving that touching of a sexual nature by Dr. IJK of Ms. A took place as alleged. The Committee does not find on the evidence that it is more likely than not that sexual touching did take place. Accordingly, the Committee found the allegations of sexual abuse and disgraceful, dishonourable and unprofessional conduct were not proven.
Full decisions are available online at www. cpso. on. ca. Select Doctor Search and enter the doctor’ s name.
Issue 4, 2016 Dialogue 79