http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onhparb/doc/2015/2015canlii70170/2015canlii70170.html
The Complaint
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.
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.
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.
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.”
12. The Committee met on May 21, 2014 and determined that it would take no action, pursuant to section 26(5) of the Code on the basis that the complaint was frivolous, vexatious, made in bad faith, moot or otherwise an abuse of process.
40. For the reasons as stated, the Board finds the Committee’s decision to be reasonable. It is based upon information in the Record, the Committee’s analysis and consideration of the Applicant’s complaint and the allegations contained therein, and the Committee’s review of previous dispositions concerning similar facts and allegations. The Committee’s decision is one of the possible, acceptable outcomes that are defensible in respect of the facts and the law.