DISCIPLINE SUMMARIES
three cases and that, in respect of the first and second
cases, Dr. Ruggles was not likely prescribing within
her scope of practice.
With respect to the 21 other patients reviewed, the
expert opined that the care provided by Dr. Ruggles
met the standard of practice.
On September 29, 2014, in response to this inves-
tigation and the expert report, Dr. Ruggles volun-
teered to cease all prescriptions of narcotics other
than to patients seen in her hospital practice. Dr.
Ruggles also offered to undertake to no longer treat
or have any clinical dealings with those people with
whom she had work-related associations.
ORDER
The Discipline Committee ordered: a two-month
suspension of Dr. Ruggles’ certificate of registration;
a reprimand; the imposition of terms, conditions and
limitations on Dr. Ruggles’ certificate of registration;
and payment of costs of $5,000 to the College.
The terms, conditions and limitation on Dr.
Ruggles’ certificate of registration include a restric-
tion on prescribing privileges. Dr. Ruggles must cease
prescribing narcotics and other controlled drugs as
specified. She is allowed a narrow exception of pa-
tients and circumstances that will permit her to func-
tion in her role as an obstetrician-gynecologist while
assuring there will be no inappropriate prescribing.
Dr. Ruggles must post a visible and secure sign in her
waiting room that she shall not prescribe narcotics
or other controlled drugs identified in the Order. Dr.
Ruggles must maintain a prescription log, which will
enable the College to review her limited prescribing
practice.
Dr. Ruggles is prohibited from treating employees
(both hospital and office) or family members except in
an emergency situation. Dr. Ruggles is also required to
successfully complete a course in medical ethics.
Dr. Ruggles will undergo a practice reassessment ap-
proximately 12 months after the date of this Order.
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. Ruggles waived
her right of appeal and the Committee administered the
public reprimand.
DR. MURRAY BRUCE WILSON
PRACTICE LOCATION: Bradford
AREA OF PRACTICE: General Practice
HEARING INFORMATION: Admission; Statement of Agreed
Facts; Joint Submission on Penalty
On November 16, 2016, the Discipline Commit-
tee found that Dr. Wilson has committed an act of
professional misconduct, in that he has engaged in an
act or omission relevant to the practice of m edicine
that, having regard to all the circumstances, would
reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful,
dishonourable, or unprofessional.
Dr. Wilson is a general practitioner who has prac-
tised in Bradford, Ontario since 1985. Patient A had
been Dr. Wilson’s patient since she was a young child.
In December 2004, when she was in her teens,
Patient A attended at Dr. Wilson’s office because she
was experiencing pain after having had intercourse
earlier that day. Her medical record indicates that on
that day she was also complaining of dysmenorrhea
and menorrhagia, as well as lower back pain of two
months’ duration, which was aggravated by bending.
At a previous appointment, Dr. Wilson had per-
formed a breast examination and identified a lump
that should be monitored.
At the December 2004 appointment, Dr. Wilson
performed a clinically-indicated physical examina-
tion on Patient A, which included an examination of
the chest, breasts, cardiovascular system, abdomen,
and pelvis. Dr. Wilson took a vaginal swab, provided
Patient A with a requisition for a urine test, and
ordered a pelvic ultrasound. Dr. Wilson documented
the examination in the patient chart.
Dr. Wilson also assessed Patient A’s lower back at
the appointment, which included asking that she
stand and bend to 90 degrees. This assessment was
clinically indicated and documented in the patient
chart. Dr. Wilson noted in the chart that his impres-
sion was that Patient A had a lumbar strain.
Patient A was confused and distressed by this ap-
pointment as a result of Dr. Wilson’s conduct during
the appointment, which included the following:
• D
r. Wilson did not provide Patient A with a
ISSUE 1, 2018 DIALOGUE
69