discipline summaries
Dr . CLARY JEFFERSON FOOTE
Practice Location : Hamilton Area of Practice : Orthopedic Surgery
Hearing Information : Admission , Agreed Statement of Facts , Joint Submission on Penalty
On January 7 , 2016 , the Discipline Committee found that Dr . Clary Foote committed an act of professional misconduct , in that he has engaged 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 disgraceful , dishonourable , or unprofessional . Dr . Foote admitted to the allegation . Dr . Foote completed four years of an orthopedic surgery residency at McMaster University . He held a restricted postgraduate education certificate with the College from July 1 , 2009 , to September 30 , 2015 . He does not currently hold an active certificate of registration with the College .
In the course of his orthopedic surgery residency , Dr . Foote planned to complete an elective offered through Dalhousie University at a hospital in Nova Scotia , to begin on October 22 , 2013 . In order to be accepted for the elective , Dr . Foote was required to submit letters of support from his program director and program chair at McMaster . In addition , he was required to obtain an educational license from the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Nova Scotia , for which he was required to submit a letter from his program director confirming that the elective had been approved by McMaster . Dr . Foote submitted two letters of support to the hospital , one purportedly signed by his program director , and one purportedly signed by his program chair . In fact , neither of them had reviewed , approved or signed the letters prior to their submission to the hospital by Dr . Foote . Dr . Foote created the letters of support by modifying letters of recommendation on his behalf previously written by these physicians and affixing their signatures electronically . Dr . Foote had submitted drafts of the letters of support to the program director and program chair prior to affixing their signatures to the letters . However , neither of them had approved the letters , provided his consent to have his signature affixed to the letter , or agreed that the letters could be submitted to the hospital prior to Dr . Foote doing so . Dr . Foote also submitted a letter to the Nova Scotia College purportedly signed by his program director confirming that the elective had been approved by McMaster . His program director had orally advised Dr . Foote that the elective had been approved , however , Dr . Foote created the letter and affixed the program director ’ s signature to the letter without the program director ’ s knowledge , consent or approval . Dr . Foote advised the College that he affixed the signatures to the three letters and submitted these letters to the hospital and the Nova Scotia College without the knowledge , consent or approval of his program director and program chair because Dr . Foote had given himself insufficient time to complete the application process for the elective at the hospital and was concerned that he would miss the deadline for application .
Reasons for Penalty Dr . Foote engaged in wilful misconduct with a clear agenda . Providing false documentation is a serious error in judgment . This behaviour undermines the values , integrity , and honesty held in high regard by the profession and relied upon by the public . Dr . Foote ’ s behaviour is out of step with the values of the profession he seeks to join . The Committee was further distressed by the fact that this misconduct occurred so early in Dr . Foote ’ s career . Strong values and good judgment are central to the practice of medicine . The making of fraudulent representations is an affront to the medical profession and it is an affront to the trust that society places on physicians . The Committee recognized that Dr . Foote has expressed remorse and acknowledged his error once his actions were discovered , and that he took remedial actions . The Committee also recognized that Dr . Foote ’ s clinical evaluations since this incident have been positive . The Committee concluded that a reprimand and a suspension in this young physician ’ s record will act as a deterrent to this physician and emphasize the negative impact his actions have on the values of the profession and public confidence in the profession . It is hoped that the rehabilitative measures imple-
52
Dialogue Issue 2 , 2017