DISCIPLINE SUMMARIES
in judgment. Dr. Brooks’ preceptor was impressed by Dr. Brooks’ sincere desire to learn and believed that the likelihood of repeating his past mistakes was exceedingly low. Aggravating factors included the fact that Dr. Brooks abused his status as a physician. Only a regulated health-care professional would be able to improperly access electronic medical records in the way that he did. Dr. Brooks allowed his curiosity to overcome respect for patients’ rights; in particular, he disregarded the rights of Patient A at a time when she was especially vulnerable. Dr. Brooks had signed an agreement not to access unauthorized patient records. However, his behaviour would have constituted misconduct even if he had not signed such an agreement. His privacy violations took place over a significant length of time – almost a decade – and had a significant impact on the patients and their families. This impact was described in victim impact statements and included a loss of trust, compounding grief, and suspicion of physicians in general. Mitigating factors included Dr. Brooks’ agreement to an Agreed Statement of Facts and Admission and a joint submission on penalty, which saved all parties the costs and burden of a contested hearing. Additionally, Dr. Brooks has a previously unblemished record and has apologized. Dr. Brooks has undergone both a self-directed and a separate preceptorshipdirected educational program. He has addressed his colleagues about the issue and his colleagues have shown a strong support for him. Finally, Dr. Brooks’ misconduct was prompted by circumstances of challenging family dynamics. The Committee agreed that a suspension of five months should achieve the goals of both individual and general deterrence and of sending a clear message to both the public and the profession of the Committee’ s denunciation of this misconduct. Rehabilitation is addressed by Dr. Brooks’ past and proposed educational activities. The individual deterrence of Dr. Brooks is further addressed by a public reprimand. Finally, the belief that Dr. Brooks is at low risk of re-offending gives grounds to believe that the public is suitably protected. In imposing this penalty, the Committee recognizes the importance of public trust in physicians. This trust is fragile and easily undermined by intrusion into health records which, by their very nature, incorporate highly sensitive and personal information. The Committee recognizes that electronic health and medical records offer a means of access that is much easier than that afforded by conventional hard copy records, and for this reason, protection must be very secure. Breaches of medical data privacy must be condemned and met with significant penalties. The Committee agrees that this is a suitable case in which to order that the costs of a one-day hearing be met by Dr. Brooks, at the tariff set by the College.
ORDER In summary, the Committee ordered and directed a five-month suspension of Dr. Brooks’ certificate of registration; a public reprimand; successful completion of a medical ethics course; and payment to the College for costs of $ 5,000. 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. Brooks waived his right to an appeal and the Committee administered the reprimand.
DR. JULIE LEE CLOWATER
PRACTICE LOCATION: Chatham AREA OF PRACTICE: Pediatrician
HEARING INFORMATION: Agreed Statement of Facts, Admission
On May 19, 2016, the Discipline Committee found that Dr. Clowater committed an act of professional misconduct, in that she engaged in conduct or 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.
Practising with Suspended Certificate The certificate of registration of Dr. Clowater was suspended between September 7 and October 6, 2011 because of non-payment of fees. Despite being
52
DIALOGUE ISSUE 3, 2017