DISCIPLINE SUMMARIES instruction in medical ethics; and payment of costs to the College 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. Pilarski waived her right to an appeal and the Committee administered the public reprimand.
DR. CHRISTOPHER PINTO
PRACTICE LOCATION: Toronto AREA OF PRACTICE: General Practice
HEARING INFORMATION: Admission; Agreed Statement of Facts, Joint Submission on Penalty
On December 19, 2016, the Discipline Committee found that Dr. Pinto committed an act of professional misconduct, in that he has 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. On April 23, 2014, the College’ s Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee( ICRC) considered a complaint that claimed that Dr. Pinto failed to administer his office practice in an appropriate manner by failing to provide a patient’ s medical records to the Workers Safety Insurance Board( WSIB) when requested by both the WSIB and the complainant. The ICRC disposed of this complaint by requiring Dr. Pinto to attend the College to be cautioned and to require him to undertake a specified continuing education and remediation program( SCERP). The ICRC identified the following concerns when it considered the complaint:
• Dr. Pinto’ s response to the complaint was that he was unable to find the requested records. Dr. Pinto is required to maintain an adult patient’ s chart for 10 years from the date of the last entry into the record. He therefore ought to have had the records available when they were requested of him in 2008;
• Dr. Pinto maintained he could not find the records. This is unacceptable, as it is a physician’ s responsibility to maintain records safely. If Dr. Pinto could not find the file, as he claimed, he should have told this to his patient and the WSIB in a timely fashion;
• Dr. Pinto’ s response to the WSIB requests for timely information was dismissive, and may have had a deleterious effect on his patient’ s welfare.
The SCERP ordered requires Dr. Pinto to engage a preceptor acceptable to the College to complete the SCERP, and to:
• engage in focused educational sessions with a preceptor acceptable to the College in the topic of office practice and management.
• maintain a log of requests for documentation throughout the preceptorship, noting all request details, dates of requests and responses to the requests.
• undergo a reassessment which will consist of a review of office practice and management approximately six months following the completion of the preceptorship.
Dr. Pinto appealed the decision to the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board( HPARB), which confirmed the ICRC’ s decision. After the HPARB released its decision on June 2, 2015, the College’ s Compliance Case Manager requested that Dr. Pinto propose the name of a preceptor for College approval so that Dr. Pinto could engage in the educational sessions ordered by the ICRC. Dr. Pinto proposed potential preceptors on June 22, and then on August 7 and August 12, 2015, who were either unacceptable to the College or unwilling to perform the task requested. The Compliance Case Manager wrote to Dr. Pinto, through his counsel, on August 27, 2015 requesting that Dr. Pinto follow-up with a potential proposed preceptor. Dr. Pinto, through his counsel, indicated he would follow-up. The Compliance Case Manager heard nothing further regarding this preceptor. The Compliance Case Manager wrote to Dr. Pinto, through his counsel, on September 14 and September 23, 2015, requesting an update. The College
ISSUE 1, 2018 DIALOGUE 63