discipline summaries
this nature and that he did not discharge this responsibility effectively. Further, when Dr. Peirovy realized that Ms. Z’ s breasts were fully exposed, his decision to proceed with the examination without offering her privacy, by way of a gown for example, was a serious lapse of judgment. Regardless of time constraints or other issues, Dr. Peirovy should have recognized the vulnerable and compromised situation of Ms. Z, and responded in a more professional manner by assisting in preserving her modesty. The Committee found his conduct in this regard unprofessional.
Following the examination, Dr. Peirovy engaged Ms. Z in conversation which culminated in asking her out on a date. He told her that she would have to sign a note for her chart terminating the doctorpatient relationship, if they were to see each other outside the office. Dr. Peirovy demonstrated egregiously poor judgment in suggesting to Ms. Z that they could see each other socially, in the context of just having compromised her privacy due to the illadvised fashion in which he had examined her. The Committee found this conduct would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional. The Committee found that the evidence with respect to Ms Y’ s allegations did not meet the requisite standard to make a finding of either sexual abuse or disgraceful, dishonourable, or unprofessional conduct and therefore these allegations are not proven. The Discipline Committee also found that Dr. Peirovy has been found guilty of offences relevant to his suitability to practise in that he was found guilty of assault on Ms. U and Ms. W. The Court imposed a conditional discharge and 18 months probation, with conditions including that Dr. Peirovy attend counselling with Dr. D, perform community service, make a charitable donation, and have no contact with the six complainants in these proceedings.
Dr. Peirovy’ s Testimony Dr. Peirovy denied the allegations. Dr. Peirovy acknowledged that he may have touched the breasts of the complainants while he was examining them. He denied that this was touching or behaviour of a sexual nature. He acknowledged that he suggested to one patient that they could go out on a date; he denied that this constituted behaviour or remarks of a sexual nature. Dr. Peirovy admitted that he has been found guilty of two counts of simple assault in relation to two of the complainants. He argued that having been found guilty of theses offences is not relevant to his suitability to practise medicine. Between 2009 and 2010, the timeframe encompassing the complaints which are the subject of this proceeding, Dr. Peirovy was working in a number of walk-in clinics. He testified that he would generally work six to eight hours per day in these clinics, typically seeing from 40 to 50 patients a day. More than half of his patients would be female. Dr. Peirovy stated that he would often treat minor respiratory problems, and that he would frequently perform lung and chest examinations on both male and female patients. Dr. Peirovy testified that, over the course of his training and subsequent clinical experience, he had developed a routine method of examining patients who presented with relatively minor respiratory complaints. He stated that at walk-in clinics time is limited and he would typically spend no more than ten minutes with each patient. He would start by taking a history of the presenting symptoms and would then usually examine both the upper and lower respiratory systems He would begin with the ears, nose and throat, then proceed to the lungs. His examination of the lungs was limited to auscultation. He would use his stethoscope to listen to the lungs by placing the diaphragm of the stethoscope directly on the patient’ s skin, first on the patient’ s back while the patient might be sitting or standing, then on the anterior chest, with the patient lying supine on the examination table. Dr. Peirovy stated that, with the patient lying on their back on the examination table, he would usually tell them to turn their head to the side away from him while he was examining their chest. This was because he would often ask them to cough during the course of the examinations, and by this means he protected himself from the patient’ s expirations. Dr. Peirovy explained his usual method of holding his stethoscope. Listening on the patient’ s back, which would typically be exposed through the lifting of clothing to the shoulder level, he held the bell of the stethoscope between his thumb and first two fingers, with his other fingers flexed and, therefore,
66
Dialogue Issue 1, 2017