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