discipline summaries
did not attend his own hearing. No explanation was provided as to why he was not present. Dr. Glumac’ s absence demonstrated a lack of respect for his governing body, which can be taken into account in the event of any future application for reinstatement. Under section 85.7 of the Code, the Committee ordered that Dr. Glumac reimburse the College for funding of counselling or therapy for Patient A, should she require it, up to the amount of $ 16,060 to be secured by an irrevocable letter of credit or other security acceptable to the College within 30 days. Finally, the Committee also acknowledged this was an appropriate case to award costs to the College. As jointly submitted, Dr. Glumac must pay the tariff amount of $ 5,000 for the one-day hearing. In summary, the Committee ordered: revocation of Dr. Glumac’ s certificate of registration; a public reprimand; reimbursement to the College for funding provided to patients under the program required under section 85.7 of the Code, and the posting of an irrevocable letter of credit in the amount of $ 16,060; and payment for costs to the College in the amount of $ 5,000.
At the conclusion of the hearing, Dr. Glumac waived his right to appeal and the Committee administered the public reprimand.
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. CREIGHTON HUI
Practice Location: Newmarket
Area of Practice: Family Medicine, Emergency Medicine
Hearing Information: Admission, Agreed Statement of Facts, Joint Submission on Penalty
On April 28, 2016, the Discipline Committee found that Dr. Creighton Hui committed an act of professional misconduct, in that the governing body of a health profession in a jurisdiction other than Ontario has found that Dr. Hui committed an act of professional misconduct that would, in the opinion of the Committee, be an act of professional misconduct as defined under Ontario legislation. Dr. Hui has practised emergency medicine at a hospital in Ontario since February 2012. Prior to that, Dr. Hui lived in Manitoba for a fellowship in emergency medicine. In August 2010, Dr. Hui began seeing patients at Clinic A in Manitoba and providing house calls. Between April 2011 and January 2012, Dr. Hui entered into an arrangement with a nurse practitioner from the Clinic; the nurse practitioner would make house call visits to patients which would be billed to Manitoba Health in Dr. Hui’ s name. The nurse practitioner proposed that Dr. Hui could attend house call visits via live video stream. While Dr. Hui did attend some house call visits by live video stream, he did not attend all of them. For these visits described above, the nurse practitioner would enter Dr. Hui’ s user identifier and password in the electronic medical record. It was therefore unclear from the medical record that Dr. Hui had not personally attended the patient or made the entry. To facilitate this arrangement, Dr. Hui gave the nurse practitioner his password for the electronic medical record system so that the nurse practitioner could sign on and make chart entries under Dr. Hui’ s name. This was done in spite of the fact that the nurse practitioner had his own user identifier and password, could have made entries under his own name, and could have written prescriptions under his own name. Between April 2011 and January 2012, Manitoba Health was billed approximately $ 201,223 for house call services provided by the nurse practitioner and billed in the name of Dr. Hui. Dr. Hui ultimately voluntarily repaid the entire $ 201,223 to Manitoba Health. The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Manitoba( CPSM) commenced an investigation of Dr. Hui in February 2012. During the investigation, Dr. Hui made a number of statements to the CPSM that he subsequently admitted were not true, for example that he supervised all patient visits by the nurse practitioner via live video link, as well as that he subsequently reviewed all of the nurse practitioner’ s chart entries. Dr. Hui subsequently admitted that he was not always present on the video link system;
58
Dialogue Issue 2, 2017