discipline summaries
ing from and giving money to the patient; creating
a relationship between the patient and a personal
friend of the psychiatrist; praying with the patient;
creating the image that the patient was special; and,
intimately touching the patient.
Dr. C concluded that Dr. Glumac poses a risk to
other patients, that Dr. Glumac does not have requisite
skills to manage opioids, and should not be doing so.
Inappropriate OHIP Billing regarding Patient A
Dr. Glumac also billed the Ontario Health Insurance
Plan for services he did not provide to Patient A. For
example: he billed and was paid for nine sessions
of psychotherapy which he did not provide, and he
billed and was paid for three sessions of psychiatric
care which he did not provide. Dr. Glumac either
billed for services he did not provide, or failed to
keep clinical records on 16 occasions.
Section 75(1)(a) Investigation regarding OHIP
Billing
On March 6, 2015, Dr. Glumac entered into an
undertaking which required, among other things,
that he cease prescribing narcotics and that he video
monitor all patient encounters.
The Compliance Case Manager who subsequently vis-
ited Dr. Glumac noted that he was conducting patient
sessions over the telephone, and was billing OHIP for
it. Consultations and assessments rendered by telephone
(including services such as psychotherapy, counselling,
primary mental health and psychiatric care), are not
insured services and are not payable by OHIP.
The College retained Dr. D to review Dr. Glumac’s
OHIP billing. In all but one of 32 patient charts
that Dr. D reviewed, he found that the OHIP bill-
ing Dr. Glumac submitted failed in some way to
meet the standard of practice of the profession. Dr.
D observed that while many insured services were
correctly billed to OHIP, Dr. Glumac billed OHIP
for services that are uninsured. This suggested that
Dr. Glumac understood and followed the general
payment rules such as the minimum duration for
time for unit based services and the time documen-
tation requirements. Dr. Glumac billed OHIP for
services such as telephone communication, Skype
sessions, faxing prescriptions, certain reports, dicta-
tions, and research on behalf of his patients. When
these uninsured services were provided, there was no
evidence in the charts that an accompanying insured
service was provided in order to justify the billing Dr.
Glumac submitted to OHIP.
In addition, Dr. Glumac billed for special visit pre-
miums when the visits attached to those premiums
were not eligible for premiums.
Dr. E, another College-appointed medical inspector
who reviewed Dr. Glumac’s patient charts also noted
billing irregularities. Dr. E noted that Dr. Glumac
inappropriately used psychiatric care codes and psy-
chotherapy fee codes to bill for other services such as
report writing, communicating with third parties, and
faxing prescriptions, which are uninsured services.
Reasons for Penalty
Counsel made a joint submission as to an appropri-
ate penalty and costs order.
Counsel submitted that an appropriate penalty is
the immediate revocation of Dr. Glumac’s certificate
of registration and a public reprimand. Additionally,
it was jointly submitted that Dr. Glumac reimburse
the College for funding provided under section 85.7
of the Code for therapy and counselling to the patient
he sexually abused. It was further jointly submitted
that Dr. Glumac pay the College the tariff cost of a
one-day hearing.
The Committee found that the immediate revoca-
tion of Dr. Glumac’s certificate of registration was
appropriate in the circumstances. Ordering immedi-
ate revocation of Dr. Glumac’s certificate of registra-
tion serves to express the Committee’s abhorrence
of his despicable behaviour with Patient A. This also
serves to maintain public confidence in the integrity
of the profession’s ability to self-govern in the pub-
lic interest. The public will be protected from Dr.
Glumac since he has now been removed from the
practice of medicine.
A public reprimand will serve to denounce Dr.
Glumac’s reprehensible misconduct and sends a mes-
sage of deterrence to the profession at large.
Dr. Glumac’s egregious blurring of doctor-patient
boundaries is completely unacceptable and warrants
the most severe penalty available: revocation.
The Committee was disappointed that Dr. Glumac
Full decisions are available online at www.cpso.on.ca.
Select Doctor Search and enter the doctor’s name.
Issue 2, 2017 Dialogue
57