DISCIPLINE SUMMARIES ary 2016. Dr. Gutman was asked to authorize a refill of the patient’ s anti-convulsant medications. Dr. Gutman authorized a refill of levetiracetam( an anticonvulsant, but not a controlled drug) and also authorized Clobazam( also used as an anti-convulsant, but which is a benzodiazepine which Dr. Gutman is prohibited from prescribing). Dr. Gutman was not aware that Clobazam is a benzodiazepine at the time he prescribed it. The prescribing occurred in error when Dr. Gutman was renewing batch prescriptions for medication prescribed by the patient’ s previous physician.
Assessing a Female Patient Contrary to the Discipline Committee’ s Restriction The College received information in November 2016, that Dr. Gutman may have conducted an assessment of a female patient, contrary to the terms of the Discipline Committee restrictions. The College commenced an investigation. Dr. Gutman was contacted by a member of Patient H’ s family, with a request that Dr. Gutman find a physician to assess a female patient, who was in her mid-90s at the time. At issue was the patient’ s capacity to vary her will and execute a new Power of Attorney. Dr. Gutman had conducted an assessment of this patient ten years earlier, prior to his restriction from seeing female patients. On October 14, 2016, Dr. Gutman conducted a capacity assessment of this female patient. He did not retain a record of the encounter and did not bill OHIP. Dr. Gutman understood that there was a degree of urgency to the request made to him as the family was having difficulty finding a physician to conduct the assessment. He believed that the Order of the Discipline Committee and the terms of his certificate of registration did not encompass the assessment of this female patient, given that the patient was in her mid-90s.
ORDER The Discipline Committee ordered a seven-month suspension of Dr. Gutman’ s certificate of registration. In addition, the Committee ordered that Dr. Gutman successfully complete one-on-one instruction in medical ethics and a course in understanding boundaries at his own expense prior to resuming practice; and that he appear before the panel to be reprimanded. He was also ordered to pay $ 5,500 in costs to the College. 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.
APPEAL On December 8, 2017, Dr. Gutman appealed the decision on penalty of the Discipline Committee to the Ontario Superior Court of Justice( Divisional Court). The appeal operates as a stay of the decision pending the outcome of the appeal. Therefore, the decision of the Discipline Committee is not in effect.
DR. ROB JOSEPH KAMERMANS
PRACTICE LOCATION: Coe Hill AREA OF PRACTICE: General Practice
HEARING INFORMATION: Admission, Agreed Statement of Facts, Contested Penalty
On July 25, 2017, the Discipline Committee found that Dr. Kamermans committed an act of professional misconduct in that: he failed to maintain the standard of practice of the profession; he engaged in 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; the governing body of a health profession in a jurisdiction other than Ontario has found that Dr. Kamermans committed an act of professional misconduct that would, in the opinion of the panel of the Discipline Committee, be an act of professional misconduct; and, the governing body of a health profession in a jurisdiction other than Ontario has made a finding of professional misconduct or a similar finding against Dr. Kamermans, and the finding is based on facts which would be an act of professional misconduct.
Failure to Maintain the Standard of Practice In October 2013, the College received a letter of complaint expressing concern about Dr. Kamermans’ prescribing of narcotics and controlled substances. The College retained a medical expert, who reviewed
ISSUE 3, 2018 DIALOGUE 39