discipline summaries
Dr. CLARY JEFFERSON FOOTE
Practice Location: Hamilton Area of Practice: Orthopedic Surgery
Hearing Information: Admission, Agreed Statement of Facts, Joint Submission on Penalty
On January 7, 2016, the Discipline Committee found that Dr. Clary Foote committed an act of professional misconduct, in that 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. Foote admitted to the allegation. Dr. Foote completed four years of an orthopedic surgery residency at McMaster University. He held a restricted postgraduate education certificate with the College from July 1, 2009, to September 30, 2015. He does not currently hold an active certificate of registration with the College.
In the course of his orthopedic surgery residency, Dr. Foote planned to complete an elective offered through Dalhousie University at a hospital in Nova Scotia, to begin on October 22, 2013. In order to be accepted for the elective, Dr. Foote was required to submit letters of support from his program director and program chair at McMaster. In addition, he was required to obtain an educational license from the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Nova Scotia, for which he was required to submit a letter from his program director confirming that the elective had been approved by McMaster. Dr. Foote submitted two letters of support to the hospital, one purportedly signed by his program director, and one purportedly signed by his program chair. In fact, neither of them had reviewed, approved or signed the letters prior to their submission to the hospital by Dr. Foote. Dr. Foote created the letters of support by modifying letters of recommendation on his behalf previously written by these physicians and affixing their signatures electronically. Dr. Foote had submitted drafts of the letters of support to the program director and program chair prior to affixing their signatures to the letters. However, neither of them had approved the letters, provided his consent to have his signature affixed to the letter, or agreed that the letters could be submitted to the hospital prior to Dr. Foote doing so. Dr. Foote also submitted a letter to the Nova Scotia College purportedly signed by his program director confirming that the elective had been approved by McMaster. His program director had orally advised Dr. Foote that the elective had been approved, however, Dr. Foote created the letter and affixed the program director’ s signature to the letter without the program director’ s knowledge, consent or approval. Dr. Foote advised the College that he affixed the signatures to the three letters and submitted these letters to the hospital and the Nova Scotia College without the knowledge, consent or approval of his program director and program chair because Dr. Foote had given himself insufficient time to complete the application process for the elective at the hospital and was concerned that he would miss the deadline for application.
Reasons for Penalty Dr. Foote engaged in wilful misconduct with a clear agenda. Providing false documentation is a serious error in judgment. This behaviour undermines the values, integrity, and honesty held in high regard by the profession and relied upon by the public. Dr. Foote’ s behaviour is out of step with the values of the profession he seeks to join. The Committee was further distressed by the fact that this misconduct occurred so early in Dr. Foote’ s career. Strong values and good judgment are central to the practice of medicine. The making of fraudulent representations is an affront to the medical profession and it is an affront to the trust that society places on physicians. The Committee recognized that Dr. Foote has expressed remorse and acknowledged his error once his actions were discovered, and that he took remedial actions. The Committee also recognized that Dr. Foote’ s clinical evaluations since this incident have been positive. The Committee concluded that a reprimand and a suspension in this young physician’ s record will act as a deterrent to this physician and emphasize the negative impact his actions have on the values of the profession and public confidence in the profession. It is hoped that the rehabilitative measures imple-
52
Dialogue Issue 2, 2017