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