DISCIPLINE SUMMARIES
REASONS FOR PENALTY After final payments under the bankruptcy proposal , Patient B will remain out of pocket in the amount of approximately $ 261,396 . After final payments under the bankruptcy proposal , Patient A will remain out of pocket in the amount of approximately $ 406,000 . Neither figure includes any interest calculation .
In his testimony , Dr . Virani described his current financial challenges and the impact that they have had on his spouse and four adult children , three of whom still live at home . He apologized to his patients and to the College for his actions . Dr . Virani acknowledged his naïveté and poor judgment . He acknowledged that he “ threw good money after bad while the writing was on the wall .” On cross-examination , Dr . Virani admitted that he has no plans to reimburse the two patients for the balance that he has not already repaid after his proposal in bankruptcy expires in August 2017 . He was unable to explain why he had provided an incorrect declaration in his 2011 College membership renewal about whether a court had found against him since April 2010 in any lawsuit involving a patient .
The Committee reviewed the key elements of the case before it . Dr . Virani violated professional boundaries by using his patients ’ personal financial information , obtained in the context of a patientphysician relationship , in an attempt to further his own financial interests . He used the power imbalance that exists between a physician and a patient in an attempt to enrich himself . He breached the trust that his patients conferred upon him to manipulate his patients to loan him very substantial sums of money ( in excess of $ 700,000 ). The Committee noted the vulnerability of patients that exists in large part as a result of the power imbalance in the doctor-patient relationship . In addition , patients place immense trust in their physicians and expect their physicians to act in their best interests . The influence of these two factors is illustrated by the two patients , who despite their own business backgrounds , were vulnerable because of the immense trust they mistakenly bestowed upon Dr . Virani due to his status in the Iranian-Canadian community . Both patients felt that Dr . Virani ’ s Iranian medical training and his ability to speak Farsi were elements that increased their level of trust in their physician .
Given the multicultural nature of the patient population in Ontario , the Committee was particularly aware in this case of the need for all physicians to recognize the role that sharing an ethnic or linguistic background with patients may have in establishing trust that can then be breached when enticing patients into financial dealings . Dr . Virani capitalized on his patient-perceived status in the Iranian-Canadian community to obtain money from these patients . One patient even refused to ask for interest on the loan because of his religious background . Dr . Virani ’ s dishonesty was demonstrated when he failed to disclose to his patients the nature of his own financial losses to Mr . Latif and the fact that the local RBC bank would not deal with the Pakistani bank that Mr . Latif was using for his business dealings . Furthermore , Dr . Virani blatantly gave his patients cheques without having sufficient funds available at the time . By the time his proposal in bankruptcy expires , Dr . Virani will have made only modest repayments to the patients and he testified that he has no future plans to repay his patients after that . Until the hearing , Dr . Virani had not apologized to his patients . Both the College and Dr . Virani made proposals on penalty . Both proposals included a reprimand and payment of costs to the College of a one-day hearing at the tariff rate of $ 5,000 . Both also included a term and condition to be imposed on Dr . Virani ’ s certificate of registration of an educational nature : the College asked that Dr . Virani be required to complete a course on ethics to be approved by the College at his expense , and Dr . Virani proposed that he attend six months of individual counselling and educational sessions , at his own expense , in an ethics and boundary course with an expert approved by the College , addressing ethics , fiduciary duty and undue influence in professional relationships . The parties agreed that there should be a suspension of Dr . Virani ’ s certificate of registration , but they disagreed as to : the length of the suspension , whether any portion of the suspension should be remitted on terms , and whether the suspension should be served consecutively or intermittently . The College proposed a 12-month suspension of Dr . Virani ’ s certificate of registration , to be served consecutively . Dr . Virani proposed a 7-month suspension , with
74
DIALOGUE ISSUE 3 , 2017