discipline summaries
The Committee determined that the appropriate costs award in this matter should be the tariff rate requested by the College reduced by 30 percent. The Committee therefore orders costs of $ 28,098 to be paid within six months. In summary, the College directed revocation, a public reprimand, and costs in the amount of $ 28,098. On August 24, 2016, Dr. Kamermans appealed the Discipline Committee’ s decisions to the Divisional Court of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice.
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.
Dr. CHINNIAH KRISHNALINGAM
Practice Location: Richmond Hill Area of Practice: PsychiATRy
Hearing InformATion: STATement of Uncontested FacTS, Uncontested Penalty
On February 8, 2016, the Discipline Committee found that Dr. Chinniah Krishnalingam committed acts of professional misconduct, in that he has engaged in sexual abuse of a patient, and he 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. Krishnalingam did not contest the allegations. Dr. Krishnalingam, a psychiatrist who had a certificate of registration with the College until he resigned it on December 21, 2015, treated Patient A on at least 26 separate occasions between 2011 and 2012. The treatment took place at a hospital where Patient A attended the hospital’ s mental health program between May and June 2011. Patient A had a history of experiencing abuse and suffered depression. During appointments, Dr. Krishnalingam asked Patient A insensitive and inappropriate questions about her sex life, including how many times per week she had sex with her husband. Dr. Krishnalingam also suggested that Patient A’ s husband had engaged in extramarital sex because she did not have sex with him often enough. Dr. Krishnalingam advised that she should have sex with her husband more often so that he would not have to‘ go elsewhere’ for sex. Dr. Krishnalingam also made inappropriate comments about Patient A’ s appearance, including telling Patient A she was a very beautiful woman and that her lips were very sexy. Dr. Krishnalingam grabbed and hugged Patient A on several occasions despite her clear indications on each occasion that she did not consent to physical contact. On one occasion, at the end of a session as Patient A was leaving, Dr. Krishnalingam grabbed and hugged her with both arms, pressing his chest against hers. Dr. Krishnalingam attempted to kiss Patient A during this hug; she pushed him away and turned her head to the side such that his lips touched her cheek. On several occasions Dr. Krishnalingam asked Patient A to attend the hospital on weekends when he was on call. When she asked why, he indicated so they could be alone and would not be disturbed. He gave his personal phone number to her and asked that she call him to arrange meetings while he was on call at the hospital. Patient A did not call him on his personal phone number or see him when he was on call. During follow-up appointments Dr. Krishnalingam inquired as to why she was not coming to see him when he was on call and again indicated nobody else would be present on the floor, they would be alone together, and they could talk and get to know one another. During sessions with Patient A, Dr. Krishnalingam failed to maintain patient confidentiality by leaving patient files out on his desk such that Patient A could see the patients’ names, dates of birth, medications, and other personal health information. On at least one occasion, Dr. Krishnalingam disclosed to Patient A that he was being investigated by the College and asked whether she had reported
Full decisions are available online at www. cpso. on. ca. Select Doctor Search and enter the doctor’ s name.
Issue 1, 2017 Dialogue 63