Doctor discipline hearing highlights new public stance

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 13/11/2022 (726 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

A former doctor’s unfounded claims Manitoba physician watchdog investigators “tortured” him and were “racist” have landed him in front of a discipline panel.

The man faces three charges of professional misconduct relating to emails he sent to college members alleging torture and racism — which the college investigated and deemed unfounded, suggesting he was attempting to manipulate inquiry proceedings by damaging investigators’ credibility — and accusations he falsified an infant’s vaccination record.

Last week, a three-person College of Physicians and Surgeons of Manitoba panel gathered virtually to hear the case against the former doctor, who was not present for the hearing.

His lawyer told the panel he was not contesting the charges. He can’t be named due to a publication ban that prevents identifying physicians who only stand accused of misconduct.

College lawyer Jeremy de Jong told the panel the former doctor was in the midst of having his licence revoked for a separate matter when he sent the emails to the college.

“Those people who made forged false case against me and those who gave me stress and put me at death spot, Allah will do justice if in this world then hereafter,” the man said in an email read by de Jong. The Free Press is not disclosing dates when the events occurred to avoid identifying the man.

A few days later, he sent another email alleging a college lawyer “tortured me” when interviewing him while he was fasting for religious reasons. He said his throat became increasingly dry and the lawyer offered him water, which he couldn’t drink due to fasting.

“It was a terrible attack on my religion,” he alleged.

In another email, the man refers to a member of the college involved in his case as being “the No. 1 racist of the world.”

“At the time when these were first received they were quite alarming to the college,” de Jong said. While some college members were concerned about their own safety, “paramountly the college was concerned about (the doctor’s) well-being.”

Steps were taken to make sure the then-doctor was safe, de Jong said.

Later, pressed on the allegations, the former doctor walked back his claims.

He said within the college community, he does not “see people I can relate to i.e. people of colour, people who come from minorities or whose first language is not English… This contributed to my belief that the whole process was prejudiced toward me.”

It was not the allegations themselves that led the college to act against the man, but the “manner” he expressed them in and “underlying motivations for doing so,” De Jong said.

The college investigated the allegations, deeming them unfounded, de Jong said.

The panel also heard the former doctor appeared to falsify an infant’s patient record.

The patient’s father complained to the college after realizing some recorded vaccinations didn’t line up when he went to another physician to finish the vaccine schedule, De Jong said.

Through system records, the college was able to see the patient’s record was altered — with different vaccinations listed — the month the father complained and again when the doctor sent the records to the college.

“I would submit that (the doctor) manipulated that record,” de Jong said.

“I am to this day uncertain about which vaccinations were given and all I can rely on is what I initially included in the chart notes,” the doctor told the college when confronted with the discrepancies.

De Jong told the panel it was important to proceed with this case, even though the man is no longer a CPSM member, as it will preserve the public’s confidence in the college’s ability to self-regulate and will show the college denounces such conduct, acting as a deterrent to would-be bad actors.

However, he added the college hopes the case will not send a “chill” to members.

“We don’t want people to feel they can’t bring legitimate concerns about cultural sensitivities to the college,” de Jong said. “(This) is a very, very context-specific situation and the panel has to consider very, very carefully in determining if (the former doctor’s) conduct amounts to professional misconduct.”

Until now, it has been rare — if not unheard of — for matters raised at CPSM discipline hearings to become public prior to the college finding a doctor guilty.

The college has newly committed to posting upcoming hearing dates publicly following a Free Press investigation into secrecy surrounding physician discipline. Typically, it takes months following a hearing for the college to reveal details of charges, which it only does if it finds the physician guilty of misconduct or otherwise takes disciplinary action.

The college is expected to make a decision on the case involving the former doctor in 90 days, though it’s not clear what consequences he could face if found guilty.

katrina.clarke@freepress.mb.ca