discipline summaries
him. Counsel for the College made a submission on penalty that counsel for Dr. Krishnalingam did not oppose.
Reasons for Penalty Dr. Krishnalingam’ s behaviour with this patient was very troubling to the Committee. Boundary violations were frequent, repetitive, and alarming. Dr. Krishnalingam subjected this patient to actions and remarks of a sexual nature which amount to not only a most serious breach of trust, but also to a complete failure of his professional responsibility towards this emotionally disturbed and vulnerable individual. The complainant, in her impact statement, stated that her experience with Dr. Krishnalingam was“ scary and hurtful.” She was evidently in a vulnerable state when she started to see him. She wrote that the experience has left her with severe depression, an inability to trust, and nightmares about what occurred. The complainant has been unable to find another psychiatrist, leaving her feeling further victimized by the system. It is clear to the Committee that this patient, already struggling with mental health problems, was further traumatized by her experience with Dr. Krishnalingam. The Committee found that Dr. Krishnalingam’ s interaction with this patient represents a pattern of behaviour and was not merely an isolated set of circumstances. Previous concerns regarding Dr. Krishnalingam behaving similarly have surfaced regularly over a very long period of time. The Committee is aware of the limited use which can be made of previous cautions based on allegations that have not been proven in disciplinary proceedings. There is, however, precedent for the Discipline Committee considering prior complaints and cautions as an aggravating factor. While Dr. Krishnalingam did not oppose the penalty proposed by the College, he did not consent to it, either. Defence counsel submitted that Dr. Krishnalingam had resigned from the College on December 21, 2015, and is now retired. Defence counsel submitted that if Dr. Krishnalingam had not resigned his certificate and retired, Dr. Krishnalingam might have made a different submission at this hearing. The Committee considered all the evidence as well as the submissions of counsel. The Committee accepted the College’ s submission that the protection of the public requires that Dr. Krishnalingam be removed from practice. The evidence discloses Dr. Krishnalingam’ s pattern of behaviour over many years which repeatedly exposed his patients to potential and actual harm. Dr. Krishnalingam continually abused his position of trust and authority, taking advantage of his vulnerable patients by subjecting them to behaviour and remarks of a sexual nature. He has been given multiple opportunities to reform his behaviour, but he has not done so. Previous cautions and disciplinary sanctions have proven ineffective. Dr. Krishnalingam does not appear to have developed any insight, and the prognosis for favourable change at this point is poor. He has not provided the Committee with any explanation for his behaviour, and presented no evidence with respect to his rehabilitative potential. The only mitigating factor, in the view of the Committee, is that Dr. Krishnalingam entered a plea of no contest, which spared the complainant from having to testify at the hearing. In the Committee’ s view, nothing short of revoking Dr. Krishnalingam’ s certificate of registration would meet the goals of protecting the public, maintaining public confidence in the integrity of the profession, and adequately expressing the membership’ s and the general public’ s abhorrence of sexual abuse of patients by their physicians. In summary, the Discipline Committee ordered and directed that the Registrar revoke Dr. Krishnalingam’ s certificate of registration effective immediately; Dr. Krishnalingam appear before the panel to be reprimanded; he reimburse the College for funding provided to patients under the program required under section 85.7 of the Code, and post an irrevocable letter of credit or other security acceptable to the College to guarantee payment of such amounts within 30 days of the date this Order becomes final, in the amount of $ 16,060; and Dr. Krishnalingam pay to the College costs in the amount of $ 5,000.
At the conclusion of the hearing, Dr. Krishnalingam waived his right to an appeal and the Committee administered the public reprimand.
64
Dialogue Issue 1, 2017