DISCIPLINE SUMMARIES
with respect to his record keeping by copying sections of notes from one patient file to another.
Investigation of Patient Complaints The Committee found that Dr. Hill failed to maintain the standard of practice of the profession with respect to his investigation of patient complaints and referrals for testing. Both experts agreed that in some cases, Dr. Hill under-investigated complaints and in other cases, he over-investigated. For example, in the case of Patient D, Dr. X noted that there were four clinical visits over two years which documented abdominal pain that was not investigated or treated. For Patient G, Dr. Y noted that Dr. Hill treated anemia with iron without investigating the cause of the anemia. For other patients, both experts noted that Dr. Hill ordered numerous laboratory tests without documented indications.
Management of Diabetic Patients The Committee further found that Dr. Hill failed to maintain the standard of practice of the profession with respect to his treatment of diabetic patients. Dr. X opined that Dr. Hill’ s diabetic control for one patient was“ terrible, with no indication of referral to a diabetes education program, discussions with the patient, or a referral to an endocrinologist.” Dr. Y supported Dr. X’ s concerns with respect to this patient.
DISGRACEFUL, DISHONOURABLE, OR UNPROFESSIONAL CONDUCT The Committee found that Dr. Hill engaged in conduct that was disgraceful, dishonorable, or unprofessional in two respects: in his communications with Patient A and in his falsification of patient records. The Committee concluded that Dr. Hill’ s response to Patient A’ s demands for financial compensation was unprofessional. Although Patient A’ s behaviour following the diagnosis of his rectal cancer may have been inappropriate, Dr. Hill’ s response was unprofessional in trying to paint Patient A as a person with mental health issues. With respect to the falsification of patient records, the Committee found that forgeries were evident in Dr. Hill’ s charts going back to 2004. Dr. X testified that falsification of records by duplicating patient charts occurred in 11 of the 26 charts he reviewed. For one chart, the entire clinical record was a forgery. Dr. Hill admitted to copying charts, stating that he did so as a means of cutting down his workload. The Committee held that falsifying charts is dishonest and deceitful and reflects a lack of moral fitness to discharge the obligations expected of a member of the College.
INCOMPETENCE The Committee determined that Dr. Hill’ s charting and patient care reflected a lack of knowledge, skill and judgment to an extent that demonstrates that he is unfit to continue to practise or that his practice should be restricted. The Committee found that Dr. Hill is incompetent. The Committee accepted the evidence of Dr. X, who concluded that since at least 2010, Dr. Hill’ s level of practice had seriously degraded to the point where Dr. Hill is incompetent and engaging in substandard care. Following his interview with Dr. Hill, Dr. X concluded that Dr. Hill had significant knowledge gaps for common medical conditions and often under-investigated or over-investigated patients. The Committee also found that Dr. Hill displayed a significant lack of judgment in duplicating notes from one patient’ s chart to another.
ORDER The Discipline Committee ordered: the revocation of Dr. Hill’ s certificate of registration; a reprimand; payment of costs to the College in the amount of $ 69,538. 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.
On December 2, 2016 and June 10, 2017, Dr. Hill appealed the Committee’ s decisions on liability and penalty to the Divisional Court of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. Pursuant to s. 71 of the Code, the Discipline Committee’ s decision remains in effect despite the appeal.
54
DIALOGUE ISSUE 1, 2018