DISCIPLINE SUMMARIES
DR. ROMULO FANIO ANASTASIO JR.
PRACTICE LOCATION: Hamilton
AREA OF PRACTICE: General Practice
HEARING INFORMATION: Statement of Uncontested
Facts, Plea of No Contest
On November 1, 2016, the Discipline Commit-
tee found that Dr. Anastasio committed an act of
professional misconduct, in that he engaged in the
sexual abuse of a patient; contravened a term, con-
dition, or limitation on his certificate of registra-
tion; and 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.
Dr. Anastasio did not contest the allegations.
He resigned his membership in 2016.
Patient A
Patient A became Dr. Anastasio’s patient when she
was an infant. She saw him as her family doctor
until she was in her late 20s. In the fall of 2007,
when Patient A was in her late 20s, she attended Dr.
Anastasio’s office for her annual physical and Dr.
Anastasio performed an internal exam. Dr. Anastasio
told Patient A he was concerned about a possible
HPV infection because her cervix appeared red. Dr.
Anastasio advised her that HPV infections could lead
to cervical cancer and requisitioned a genital culture
pap smear to investigate these concerns. He told her
he wanted to keep track of this with regular visits.
At that appointment, Dr. Anastasio told Patient A
he wanted to monitor her closely. He gave her his
pager number so that she could reach him whenever
she wanted. Dr. Anastasio asked Patient A to provide
him with her cell phone number, so that she could
be kept up-to-date on the matter. Patient A gave Dr.
Anastasio her cell phone number as she was grateful
that her doctor appeared concerned for her health.
After this encounter, Dr. Anastasio called Patient A
several times on her cell phone to come to the clinic
for follow-up. He asked her to come to the clinic
after 5 p.m. Although she understood that his office
62
DIALOGUE ISSUE 4, 2017
was closed at this time and she had never attended
his office after 5 p.m. before, she trusted Dr. Anasta-
sio, and so she complied with his request.
Patient A arrived at Dr. Anastasio’s office in the
early evening in the fall of 2007. No one else was
present at the office at that time. Dr. Anastasio
showed her around the clinic space and pointed to a
couch at the rear of the clinic where he advised her
he sometimes sleeps.
Dr. Anastasio brought Patient A into an exami-
nation room and told her he was pleased she was
staying on top of the issue; and not to be concerned,
he wanted to ensure it was not something leading
to cancer. Dr. Anastasio told Patient A he wanted
to examine her to see if the redness was spreading.
Dr. Anastasio asked her to undress from the waist
down. Dr. Anastasio gave Patient A a sheet to cover
herself and left the examination room while she got
undressed.
Dr. Anastasio sat on a stool at the foot of the
examination table and asked Patient A to move her
buttocks to the edge of the examination table. He
inserted a speculum and examined Patient A’s vaginal
area. He removed the speculum and stood up from
the stool. As he stood up, Dr. Anastasio pressed his
groin area onto Patient A’s naked genital area. Dr.
Anastasio then stood next to Patient A while she lay
on the examination table. He removed his gloves.
Without warning, with his bare hands, he took her
hand and pushed it into her vagina. He told her he
wanted her to feel her cervix and know where it is.
Pushing Patient A’s hand into her vagina served no
legitimate medical purpose. Dr. Anastasio main-
tained no clinical record of this patient encounter.
Following that evening, Dr. Anastasio continued to
call Patient A requesting that she return to his office
for further examination after hours. On one occa-
sion, Dr. Anastasio called Patient A while she was at
home and she became angry and threw the phone
on the kitchen table. At that time, her mother made
inquiries and she disclosed to her mother what had
happened. Her mother disclosed this to her doctor,
who then reported the incident to the College.
Breach of Prior Discipline Committee Order
Dr. Anastasio was the subject of a prior discipline
proceeding at the College in which he was found
to have engaged in disgraceful, dishonourable, and