discipline summaries
responsibilities are of a degree that no form of reme-
diation is appropriate.
The Committee accepts that this was the first time
Dr. Marcin has appeared before it and that the hear-
ing proceeded by way of agreed statement of the
facts and admission or plea of no contest. However,
in the face of such overwhelming misconduct, the
Committee is of the view that there are no significant
mitigating circumstances and revocation is the only
proportional penalty.
The Committee found that this was an appropriate
case in which to award costs. Costs are ordered in the
amount of $10,000.
The Discipline Committee ordered and directed
that: the Registrar revoke Dr. Marcin’s certificate of
registration effective immediately; Dr. Marcin appear
before the Discipline Committee to be reprimanded;
and that Dr. Marcin pay to the College its costs fixed
at $10,000.
At the conclusion of the hearing, Dr. Marcin waived
her 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. HERMAN YIP-CHI NG
Practice Location: Toronto
Area of Practice: General Practice
Hearing Information: Agreed Statement of
Facts, Uncontested; Joint Submission on Penalty
On February 22, 2016, the Discipline Committee
found that Dr. Herman Ng committed acts of profes-
sional misconduct, in that he failed to maintain the
standard of practice of the profession; and he en-
gaged 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 dis-
graceful, dishonourable or unprofessional.
64
Dialogue Issue 2, 2017
The Discipline Committee also found that Dr. Ng
is incompetent.
Dr. Ng is a 68 year-old general practitioner.
Patient A was Dr. Ng’s patient for approximately
10 years. On February 13, 2015, the College received
a complaint from Patient A expressing concerns
about how Dr. Ng conducted himself during an ap-
pointment on February 7, 2015. Patient A was also
concerned that Dr. Ng failed to maintain adequate
cleanliness in his office environment.
On February 27, 2015, the College conducted an
unannounced inspection at Dr. Ng’s clinic which
revealed significant cleanliness concerns, including:
• the disposing of used non-safety engineered syring-
es in a dirty sink;
• no clear delineation between soiled and clean areas;
• improper cleansing and disinfecting of instruments;
and
• a dirty and cluttered examination/utility/consulta-
tion room.
On April 15, 2015, Dr. Ng provided the College
with what he purported to be Patient A’s original
patient chart.
The College investigator sent a letter to Dr. Ng
dated May 11, 2015, asking for Dr. Ng to confirm
that he had not altered the chart in any way or made
any changes to it, and that all entries were made on
the dates shown on the chart. Dr. Ng’s counsel sent
a letter to the College on May 13, 2015, stating that
Dr. Ng had not altered the chart in any way, and that
all entries had been made contemporaneously.
The College retained a forensic document exam-
iner to review Patient A’s chart. The forensic report
confirmed that parts of Dr. Ng’s chart for Patient A
had been substituted and backdated.
The College retained an expert, Dr. Z, to review
Dr. Ng’s care for Patient A; Dr. Ng’s infection con-
trol procedures; and Dr. Ng’s maintenance of equip-
ment in his practice. Dr. Z’s review of Dr. Ng’s care
of Patient A was based on Dr. Ng’s chart, which had
been altered by Dr. Ng.
Dr. Z’s comments on Dr. Ng’s infection control
procedures included the following:
“Dr. Ng did not meet the standard of practice of
the profession as of March 12, 2015, with respect