http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onhparb/doc/2015/2015canlii46/2015canlii46.html
51. The Committee considered the information in the Record and concluded that it remained extremely troubled by the Applicant’s apparent lack of understanding of his role as independent medical examiner or third party assessor.
52. The Committee noted that the Applicant conducted the appointments with the Respondent without obtaining the express consent and clarifying the purposes of the assessments; he communicated certain aspects of the Respondent’s health information directly to the Respondent’s employer also without the express consent of the Respondent; he provided medical treatment over several appointments to an individual whom he had been hired to assess by that individual’s employer, creating a conflict of interest between his role as third party assessor and treating physician to the individual; and he did not document the treatment provided to the Respondent nor the rationale for such treatment.
53. The Committee determined to issue a caution in person to the Applicant as he acted far beyond the scope of what is appropriate for an examiner or assessor, and appeared not to have an adequate understanding of the role of such a physician.
54. The Committee required the Applicant to attend the College to be cautioned regarding his obligations as an independent medical examiner or third party assessor and particularly with respect to:
• assessing a patient without adequate, informed consent;
• treating an individual who was not a patient;
• failing to obtain written consent to discuss his findings with the employer of the individual being assessed; and
• failing to document the treatment provided.
55. The Applicant and his Counsel made strong objections to the Committee’s analysis of the Applicant’s actions and submitted that he should not be judged by the Third Party Policy as he is a “company doctor” and practices in the Occupational Health and Safety Field and does not view himself as being subject to that policy.
56. The Board notes that this issue was addressed previously in this decision under ‘Adequacy of the Investigation,’ wherein the Board found that the Committee had retained an IOP practising in the occupational health field in order to have sufficient expertise to address the issues involved in this complaint.
57. As stated, the Committee, after considering the independent opinion, found that the Applicant is subject to the standards as set out in the Third Party Policy.
58. The Committee has considered the Applicant’s conduct and actions with the lens of the Third Party Policy and the assistance of an IOP practising in the Occupational Health and Safety field.
59. The Committee has based its findings on information in the Record.
60. Notwithstanding the Applicant’s strong objections, the Committee’s decision is a decision that falls within a range of possible, acceptable outcomes that are defensible in respect of the facts and the law and is thus reasonable.