discipline summaries as the other terms, conditions and limitations on her certificate of registration all serve to protect the public and maintain the public’ s confidence in the profession and its ability to self-regulate in the public interest. The Committee’ s reprimand of Dr. Wojcicka serves to denounce her conduct, and provides specific and general deterrence. The Committee found that Dr. Wojcicka failed to maintain the standard of practice in the care of her BHRT patients. It is essential to the public interest that the College assure the public that its members practise in accordance with the standard of practice of the profession. Dr. Wojcicka failed in her obligation in multiple respects. The Committee expressed its hope that the prospect of a forthcoming assessment of Dr. Wojcicka’ s medical practice will lead her to reflect upon whether other aspects of her care meet the expected standard. Dr. Wojcicka’ s payment of costs compensates the College, at least in part, for the cost of her hearing. The Committee accepted the jointly submitted penalty and costs order as appropriate in the circumstances of this case. In summary, the Committee ordered a public reprimand; a one-month suspension on Dr. Wojcicka’ s certificate of registration; a prohibition from practising any complementary or alternative medicine; a prohibition from consulting and / or treating patients with respect to bioidentical hormone replacement therapy; a requirement that she refer to a gynecologist any female patient requesting or requiring hormonal or menopausal care or treatment; an assessment of Dr. Wojcicka’ s practice; and costs in the amount of $ 5,000.
At the conclusion of the hearing, Dr. Wojcicka 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. OPQ
On July 29, 2016, the Discipline Committee found that allegations of sexual abuse and disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional conduct against Dr. OPQ were not proved. Dr. OPQ had denied the allegations. Patient A attended at the walk-in clinic where Dr. OPQ worked on a date in November 2010 because of an exacerbation of her asthma. She complained that Dr. OPQ inappropriately touched her breast in a sexual manner during a chest examination on that day. Although the Committee accepted that Patient A truly believed that she had been touched in a sexual manner by Dr. OPQ at the November 2010 appointment, the Committee found Patient A’ s testimony to be unreliable because of multiple inconsistencies. The Committee considered that there were several factors that contributed to Patient A’ s perception of the chest examination on a date in November 2010:
• Patient A’ s difficulty breathing due to an exacerbation of her asthma and the stress of the illness itself;
• Patient A was seen by a male physician while she is accustomed to being seen by a female physician;
• Given the clinical setting was a walk-in clinic, Patient A had no familiarity with Dr. OPQ and therefore there was no previous trust established;
• Patient A was not offered a gown( although the Committee accepted on the expert evidence that this was not a requirement for a chest examination);
• Patient A was unfamiliar with the type of stethoscope used, which required the physician to hold the stethoscope between fingers, with the flat of his hand on the patient’ s chest, and exert differing degrees of pressure. Patient A was accustomed to a dual-head stethoscope which a physician grasps by the rim during use.
Full decisions are available online at www. cpso. on. ca. Select Doctor Search and enter the doctor’ s name.
Issue 2, 2017 Dialogue 71