Dialogue Volume 13 Issue 3 2017 | Page 67

DISCIPLINE SUMMARIES that he performed a pelvic examination at Patient A’ s last visit, and that she mistook a speculum or a gloved finger for Dr. Ruggiero’ s penis. Dr. Ruggiero was not standing in the position he stood in to perform pelvic examinations, but instead at the foot of the examination table. Patient A also testified that she was aware of what pelvic examinations and digital examinations feel like, and this was different. The Committee found that when Dr. Ruggiero asked Patient A to undress from the waist down and lie down on the examination table, it was not his intention to perform a medically-indicated pelvic examination. Rather, his true intent was to take advantage and exploit a vulnerable patient by inserting his penis into her vagina for self-gratification. The Committee found that Patient A raised her head to see what was going on during the appointment, and saw Dr. Ruggiero’ s pants unzipped and his penis with a condom on it going in and out of her vagina, while hearing him moaning. The Committee found that Dr. Ruggiero perceived Patient A in a sexualized manner. It noted that Dr. Ruggiero spontaneously described Patient A to a College investigator as having been dressed“ very, very seductively” the day of the assault. Dr. Ruggiero also testified that Patient A was not a virgin when he saw her. The Committee found that Dr. Ruggiero was being deceptive when he provided College investigators, the Committee, and Patient A’ s mother with various explanations for why he would have performed a pelvic examination. These explanations did not have a factual basis and were merely attempts to provide a legitimate explanation for why he would have asked Patient A to undress from the waist down and lie on the examination table for a purported pelvic examination. The Committee disagreed with Dr. Ruggiero’ s position that it would be difficult to carry out an act of sexual assault during office hours in Dr. Ruggiero’ s office at the time. It also rejected Dr. Ruggiero’ s position that it would be physically impossible for Dr. Ruggiero to have inserted his penis into the patient’ s vagina.
REASONS FOR PENALTY Counsel for the College submitted that the suitable penalty was the revocation of Dr. Ruggiero’ s certificate of registration, a public reprimand and costs in the amount of $ 25,000 based upon five hearing days at a tariff rate of $ 5,000 per day. Counsel for Dr. Ruggiero did not contest the proposed penalty because she agreed that revocation was the appropriate penalty for the serious act of sexual impropriety found by the Committee to have occurred. The sexual misconduct in this case occurred approximately 30 years ago. As the Health Disciplines Act, 1980 is the applicable legislation in this case, the Committee used the term in that legislation,“ sexual impropriety,” in describing Dr. Ruggiero’ s sexual misconduct. In doing so, the Committee noted it did not in any way wish to understate the very serious nature of Dr. Ruggiero’ s misconduct. The sanctions of revocation of Dr. Ruggiero’ s certificate of registration and a reprimand were available to the Committee under the provisions of the Health Disciplines Act, 1980. Counsel for Dr. Ruggiero did not contest the availability of costs since costs are a procedural matter and costs laws apply retrospectively. The Committee ordered revocation of Dr. Ruggiero’ s certificate of registration. The Committee also ordered that Dr. Ruggiero appear before this Committee to be reprimanded and to pay costs of $ 25,000. The Committee noted that the principles relevant to imposing a penalty in a discipline proceeding are well established. The protection of the public is the paramount consideration. Others principles include: maintenance of public confidence in the reputation and integrity of the profession and in the College’ s ability to regulate the profession in the public interest; general deterrence as it applies to the profession as a whole; specific deterrence as it applies to the member; and, where appropriate, the potential for rehabilitation of the member. In arriving at its decision regarding penalty, the Committee must weigh these principles in light of the specific facts and circumstances of each case. Aggravating and mitigating factors, if any, must be also considered. Trust is a fundamental tenet of the physicianpatient relationship. Physicians are granted trust and power by virtue of their professional status, and this
Full decisions are available online at www. cpso. on. ca. Select Doctor Search and enter the doctor’ s name.
ISSUE 3, 2017 DIALOGUE 67