DISCIPLINE SUMMARIES
agreed on the joint statements of facts and penalty
and presented them to the Committee.
The proposed penalty consisted of a reprimand
and $5,000 in costs. The joint submission took into
account the fact of Dr. Lucas’ advanced age and the
fact that he signed an undertaking never to engage in
the practice of medicine again.
In determining whether the proposed penalty was
appropriate, the Committee considered the relevant
penalty principles and aggravating and mitigating
factors.
The aggravating factors in this case were that Dr.
Lucas was administering anesthetic to highly vul-
nerable patients and exposing them to several risks.
He failed to maintain the standard of practice in
several areas, including his preoperative assessments,
his documentation, and his unacceptable infectious
disease control practices.
The mitigating factors were that Dr. Lucas admit-
ted to the facts and that he failed to maintain the
standard of care in his treatment of patients. He
accepted full responsibility for his actions. Dr. Lucas’
admission spared witnesses from testifying and saved
the College the time and expense of conducting a
contested hearing.
Also, Dr. Lucas signed an undertaking to never
practise medicine again in any jurisdiction. If Dr. Lu-
cas had not signed an undertaking to never practise
again in this or any other jurisdiction, the Com-
mittee would have imposed a more severe penalty,
given the unacceptable fact that he exposed multiple
patients to potential infection. Dr. Lucas’ undertak-
ing was of utmost importance in this case to protect
the public.
Further, Dr. Lucas’ advanced age was seen as a
mitigating factor in that it is highly unlikely that
he would ever even consider working as a physician
again. This was reinforced by his undertaking to
never practise again.
The College takes very seriously its role to protect
the public from doctors who fail to maintain the
standard of practice and put patients at risk of harm.
The need for specific deterrence and rehabilitation
in this case are irrelevant given Dr. Lucas’ advanced
age and the fact that he will never practise medicine
again.
The proposed penalty addresses the relevant penalty
principles, including:
1. Th
e protection of the public, in that Dr. Lucas
has signed an undertaking to never work again as
a physician in any jurisdiction.
2. G
eneral deterrence, in that the public reprimand
serves to deter other members of the profession
from engaging in similar misconduct.
3. Th
e Committee was satisfied that the proposed
penalty, in light of the facts of this case and Dr.
Lucas’ undertaking to never practise medicine
again, serves to maintain public confidence in
the profession and its ability to govern itself in
the public interest.
ORDER
In summary, the Discipline Committee ordered and
directed that Dr. Lucas appear before the panel to
be reprimanded; and pay to the College costs in the
amount of $5,000.
For complete details of the Order, please see the
full decision at www.cpso.on.ca. Select Find a Doctor
and enter the doctor’s name.
At the conclusion of the hearing, Dr. Lucas waived his
right to an appeal and the Committee administered the
public reprimand.
Full decisions are available online at www.cpso.on.ca.
Select Doctor Search and enter the doctor’s name.
ISSUE 4, 2017 DIALOGUE
81