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