• 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

IME

SS v GC, 2013 CanLII 45566 (ON HPARB), 12-CRV-0656 2013-07-24

http://canlii.ca/t/fzsxg

4.                  The Respondent, an orthopaedic surgeon, conducted an independent medical assessment (IME) of the Applicant on June 29, 2011 as part of a multi-disciplinary assessment.

……•        he did not recall telling the Applicant to “suck it up” or “toughen up” and noted that he does not use such language;

•        he may have said something about insurance companies being taken advantage of as part of a general discussion with the Applicant but he did not suggest that the Applicant was making a false claim as evidenced by his report which confirmed that the Applicant suffered serious and extensive injuries; and

•        he has given serious consideration to the Applicant’s complaint and acknowledged that he has had previous complaints about his demeanour and ability to communicate well with patients; he has taken a communications course with Dr. Dawn Martin.

14.              The Committee noted that there had been previous complaints about the Respondent’s communications. The Committee accepted that the Respondent’s contrition in this case was sincere and stated that it was pleased that he had entered into a communications course with Dr. Martin. Nevertheless, the Committee felt that the Respondent would benefit from reflection and education in the area of communications and decided to issue a written caution to the Respondent to be aware that patients with post-traumatic chronic pain and disability who attend for an IME may not appreciate the Respondent’s efforts at small talk and that the Respondent should refrain from discussing systemic issues or details of his personal life.

24.              The Applicant submitted that the Committee’s decision was unreasonable because the caution issued to the Respondent did not reflect the serious impact that the Respondent’s conduct during the IME had on the Applicant and would not ensure that other patients would not experience the same trauma. The Applicant submitted that the Committee should have imposed a requirement that the Respondent should not be permitted to conduct an IME without someone else being present.

VI.       DECISION

37.              Pursuant to section 35(1) of the Code, the Board confirms the Committee’s decision to caution the Respondent to be aware that patients with post-traumatic chronic pain and disability who attend for an IME, such as [the Applicant], may feel vulnerable, may not appreciate his efforts at “small talk,” and that he should refrain from discussing systemic issues or details of his personal life.

Comments are closed.