• FAIR – supporting auto accident victims through advocacy and education
  • FAIR – supporting auto accident victims through advocacy and education
  • FAIR – supporting auto accident victims through advocacy and education

Uncategorized

A.L. v R.N., 2015 CanLII 70170 (ON HPARB)

by Admin4

http://canlii.ca/t/glwkx

 

Review held on March 11, 2015 at London, Ontario

 

IN THE MATTER OF A COMPLAINT REVIEW UNDER SECTION 29(1) of the Health Professions Procedural Code, Schedule 2 to the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991, Statutes of Ontario, 1991, c.18, as amended

 

B E T W E E N:

A.L.

Applicant

 

and

 

 

R.N., MD

Respondent

Appearances:

 

The Applicant:                                    A.L.

For the Respondent:                           Nadia Marotta, Counsel

For the College of Physicians

and Surgeons of Ontario:                    Cameron Vale (by teleconference)

 

DECISION AND REASONS

  1. DECISION
  2. 1.It is the decision of the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board to confirm the decision of the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario to take no action pursuant to section 26 (5) of theHealth Professions Procedural Code, being Schedule 2 to the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991, on the basis that this complaint is frivolous, vexatious, made in bad faith, moot or otherwise an abuse of process.

 

  1. 2.This decision arises from a request made to the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (the Board) byL. (the Applicant) to review a decision of the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (the Committee) of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (the College). The decision concerned a complaint regarding the conduct and actions of R.N., MD (the Respondent). The Committee decided to take no further action on the basis that this complaint is frivolous, vexatious, made in bad faith, moot or otherwise an abuse of process.

 

  1. BACKGROUND
  2. 3.The Applicant was injured in a motor vehicle collision in January 1998.

 

  1. 4.The Applicant saw the Respondent psychiatrist on or about May 25, 2006 for the purpose of anassessment and third-party report related to that accident.

 

The Complaint

 

  1. 5.The Applicant complained that the Respondent:

 

  • provided a third party report that was dishonest, inaccurate and biased;
  • made diagnoses for which there was no medical evidence, nor was he qualified to make;
  • discriminated against her because she was an “MVA [motor vehicle accident] patient”;
  • used his authority as a physician to aid and abet the insurance company;
  • was cruel and inconsiderate to her during the assessment; and
  • accused her of not being truthful.

 

  1. 6.The Committee met on February 19, 2014  to consider the Applicant’s complaint and

made the preliminary determination that it would take no action with respect to the Applicant’s complaint on the basis that the complaint was frivolous, vexatious, made in bad faith, moot or otherwise an abuse of process.

 

  1. 7.This determination was taken pursuant to sections 26(4) and 26(5) of the Health

Professions Procedural Code (the Code), being Schedule 2 of the Regulated Health

Professions Act (the RHPA or the Act), which determines the procedure to be followed

when the Committee determines a complaint to be frivolous and vexatious, made in bad faith, moot or otherwise an abuse of process.

 

  1. 8.The Committee advised the parties of its preliminary decision by letter dated March 6, 2014 and provided the parties with 30 days’ notice, informing them that they could make submissions regarding the Committee’s intention to take no further action and that the Committee would make a final determination at a later date as to whether an investigation into this matter was warranted.

 

  1. 9.That letter set out that the Committee’s preliminary determination was based on the following:

 

  • This is just one of several similar complaints brought by the Applicant for which the Committee took no action; and
  • In the similar complaints investigated, the Committee found no evidence of bias, there was no credible evidence to support the claim that the physicians were engaged in a conspiracy with the insurance company to deny treatment, and there was nothing objective in the investigative records to support the concerns.

 

  1. 10.The Respondent did not make any submissions in response to that letter.

 

  1. 11.The Applicant made a number of submissions including:

 

  • she maintains that other physicians are continuing to deny her treatment based on the Respondent’s report that she was “feigning and malingering.”;
  • information about the Respondent’s report  was used in a previous College investigation (file TB84359) without her consent, yet the notation in the Committee’s decision indicates that she provided the material;
  • she disputes that the Committee’s reasons for not investigating fall within the Act section 26(4) and (5);
  • she believes that the Respondent responded to the College and his response should have been disclosed to her;
  • she disagrees that her complaint about the Respondent is similar to others, in that:  (i)        the Respondent is a psychiatrist and the other physicians she complained           about were not;

(ii)               “the Respondent’s report is the only defence medical report I have filed a complaint about.”;

(iii)            “the Respondent was the only one who said her symptoms were “bizarre” and that she was “feigning and malingering.”;

  • she suggests that the fact that there were similar complaints concerning other physicians should be a reason to investigate, not a reason to not investigate, since multiple similar complaints would indicate a more “widespread and repetitive problem.”;
  • she disagrees with the Committee’s reason that there was no evidence to support her claim, and points to evidence gathered in the previous investigations, already disposed of by the Committee;
  • she believes that relying on the outcomes of previous investigations in order to make a decision in this case is prejudicial;
  • she claims that she “was told 3 times by the College itself that they have no intentions of finding a doctor guilty of anything, regardless of the evidence, or severety [sic] of harm to the patient.”;
  • by refusing to investigate, the College is denying her “right to complain without consequences.”;
  • she concludes that by not obtaining a written retraction from the Respondent, which would then permit her to receive continued health care, the College is, in effect, “resinding [sic] my right to OHIP and Insurance benefits.”

 

  1. 12.The Committee met on May 21, 2014 and determined that it would take no action, pursuant to section 26(5) of theCode on the basis that the complaint was frivolous, vexatious, made in bad faith, moot or otherwise an abuse of process.

Comments are closed.