discipline summaries
It was the Committee ’ s opinion that the joint submission on penalty and costs was consistent with the overarching purpose of the legislation , which is to serve and protect the public interest . It was also consistent with the ultimate purpose of the provisions of the Code with respect to sexual abuse of patients by members , which is to encourage the reporting of such abuse ; to provide funding for therapy and counselling for patients who have been sexually abused by members ; and , ultimately , to eradicate the sexual abuse of patients by members of the profession . The penalty was also consistent with the accepted guiding principles as outlined above . The Committee found Dr . Dobrowolski ’ s behaviour to be repugnant . The Committee found that this was one of the worst cases of egregious misconduct that has ever come before it . Dr . Dobrowolski ’ s misconduct related to a total of 31 female patients , 22 of whom were the subject of his criminal convictions , including Patient A , and nine who were not the subject of the criminal finding . His misconduct occurred over a 13-year period , demonstrating a persistent pattern of intolerable and inappropriate behaviour . Dr . Dobrowolski engaged repeatedly in voyeurism and in predatory behaviour towards his female patients . The public must be reassured that reprehensible behaviour , boundary violations , and the sexual abuse of patients will not be tolerated . These actions , by which Dr . Dobrowolski selfishly sought sexual gratification , caused deep anguish and lasting harm to his patients and their loved ones .
Mitigating and Aggravating Factors The Committee considered both mitigating and aggravating factors in this case . The only mitigating factor in this case was Dr . Dobrowolski ’ s plea of no contest to the allegations . As a result , a potentially lengthy and costly contested hearing was avoided and patients were spared having to testify . However , there were a number of aggravating factors as outlined below . Firstly , Dr . Dobrowolski breached the sacred trust that is necessary for an effective and therapeutic doctor-patient relationship . As a psychiatrist , Dr . Dobrowolski was in a position of power over extremely vulnerable patients and would have been aware of both the power imbalance inherent in the doctorpatient relationship and of the risk of harm to his patients likely to arise on account of his actions and his breach of their trust . Despite that awareness , Dr . Dobrowolski exploited , manipulated , and deceived his patients for his own personal sexual gratification . The Committee found particularly egregious that one of the patients he sexually abused was only 16 years old when the abuse began . Secondly , Dr . Dobrowolski ’ s conduct involved intentionally and repeatedly breaching not only a Court Order but also College restrictions placed on his certificate of registration that were in place to protect the public . The Committee concluded that Dr . Dobrowolski did not accept that boundaries in medical practice applied to him . He manipulated his patients so that he could deceive his regulator and evade the controls that were in place to protect the very individuals that he exploited and abused . Dr . Dobrowolski demonstrated , through his actions , not only a blatant disregard for the authority of the College but also a blatant disregard for the authority of the Court . Finally , the Committee considered Dr . Dobrowolski ’ s prior discipline history as a significant aggravating factor . Dr . Dobrowolski was found by previous Discipline Committee panels of this College to have committed professional misconduct that occurred between 1986 and 1992 . These findings were made in April 1995 , September 1995 , March 2000 , and July 2004 , respectively . While there was never previously a finding of patient sexual abuse , Dr . Dobrowolski was found to have engaged in disgraceful , dishonourable , or unprofessional conduct and failure to maintain the standard of practice of the profession . His misconduct had involved boundary violations in therapy , such as inappropriately touching patients , making inappropriate comments , seeing patients socially during therapy , and conducting inappropriate physical exams , as well as having inappropriate relationships with two patients after the doctor-patient relationship had ended , including a sexual relationship in one case . Given the sexual abuse findings in this case , and the previous Discipline Committee findings for other boundary violations , which included performing inap-
66
Dialogue Issue 4 , 2016