discipline summaries that he believed he should have been present on the video link system to comply with Manitoba Health ’ s fee guideline ; that he did not always review the nurse practitioner ’ s chart entries ; and that he never left the hospital when he may have been required on an urgent basis .
An Inquiry Panel of the CPSM held proceedings regarding Dr . Hui ’ s conduct and found that Dr . Hui had committed acts of professional misconduct .
Because Dr . Hui was not licensed to practise in Manitoba at the time of the hearing , the penalty ordered by the CPSM Inquiry Panel was a reprimand , a fine of $ 10,000 in lieu of a period of suspension , costs of $ 28,160.25 payable to the CPSM , and publication of Dr . Hui ’ s name and the Inquiry Panel ’ s decision .
Reasons for Penalty There are two issues before the Discipline Committee in this case . The first issue is Dr . Hui ’ s fraudulent billing of Manitoba Health . Dr . Hui participated in a scheme in which he fraudulently billed $ 201,223 to Manitoba Health while he was still a medical resident . The Committee agreed that it is inexcusable misconduct for a physician to be intentionally dishonest and fraudulent for financial gain . The second issue is Dr . Hui ’ s deceiving the governing body in Manitoba at the outset of his disciplinary investigation . The College of Physicians and Surgeons of each province must have the utmost cooperation from the physicians in their jurisdiction in order to maintain public confidence in self-regulation . The Committee considered at length the fact that Dr . Hui has already gone through the disciplinary process in Manitoba . Although he originally retained $ 60,000 from his fraudulent billing of that province , he ultimately reimbursed Manitoba Health for the entire amount billed , which was $ 201,223 . Dr . Hui was also fined $ 10,000.00 by the CPSM , and ordered to pay $ 28,160.25 in costs of that proceeding . There was significant media attention to this case in Manitoba , and Dr . Hui has faced public shame and embarrassment . However , at the time of his Manitoba discipline hearing , Dr . Hui did not have a license to practise medicine in Manitoba and therefore the CPSM could not suspend his license . The CPSM stated in their decision that they believed that the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario “ will likely have a significant role to play in determining the status of Dr . Hui ’ s licence to practice in Ontario .” Both counsel for the College and counsel for Dr . Hui agreed that , since Dr . Hui moved to Ontario to practise medicine , it is reasonable for Dr . Hui to expect to be penalized here . Further , Ontario legislation provides that the College can convene a hearing against a physician with a finding in another jurisdiction . Section 51 ( 1 )( b ) of the Code states that “ a panel shall find that a member has committed an act of professional misconduct if … the governing body of a health profession in a jurisdiction other than Ontario has found that the member committed an act of professional misconduct that would , in the opinion of the panel , be an act of professional misconduct as defined in the regulations .” Counsel for both the College and Dr . Hui also agreed that the CPSM would have suspended Dr . Hui ’ s licence if he had a licence to practise in Manitoba at the time of his discipline hearing there . The Committee also considered the mitigating factors in this case . Dr . Hui has cooperated fully with the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario , thus negating the cost and expense of a full contested hearing . He has taken responsibility for his actions in Manitoba . His misconduct occurred early in his career , and he has worked hard to earn back the trust and respect of the public as well as the profession . His current chief of staff is aware of his history with the CPSM and believes Dr . Hui to be honest and reliable . There have been no further concerns with either Dr . Hui ’ s practice of medicine or his billing of OHIP since he began practising in Ontario in 2012 . The Committee agreed with the parties ’ submissions that the proposed penalty would uphold the relevant penalty principles of specific and general deterrence , public confidence in self-regulation , rehabilitation , as well as demonstrate the Committee ’ s condemnation of Dr . Hui ’ s fraudulent billing practice and dishonesty with the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Manitoba . The Committee also determined that this was an appropriate case to order costs at the tariff rate of $ 5,000 for a one-day hearing .
Issue 2 , 2017 Dialogue 59