On December 19, 2016, the Discipline Committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario found that Dr. Christopher Pinto committed an act of professional misconduct in that he has engaged in conduct or an act or omission relevant to the practice of medicine that, having regard to all the circumstances, would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional.
Dr. Pinto practises family medicine in Toronto, Ontario.
On April 23, 2014, the College’s Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (“ICRC”) considered a complaint that claimed that Dr. Pinto failed to administer his office practice in an appropriate manner by failing to provide a patient’s medical records to the Workers Safety Insurance Board (“WSIB”) when requested by both the WSIB and the complainant. The ICRC disposed of this complaint by requiring Dr. Pinto to attend the College to be cautioned and to require him to undertake a specified continuing education and remediation program (a “SCERP”).
The ICRC identified the following concerns when it considered the complaint:
- Dr. Pinto’s response to the complaint was that he was unable to find the requested records. Dr. Pinto is required to maintain an adult patient’s chart for 10 years from the date of the last entry into the record. He therefore ought to have had the records available when they were requested of him in 2008;
- Dr. Pinto maintained he could not find the records. This is unacceptable, as it is a physician’s responsibility to maintain records safely. If Dr. Pinto could not find the file, as he claimed, he should have told this to his patient and the WSIB in a timely fashion;
- Dr. Pinto’s response to the WSIB requests for timely information was dismissive, and may have had a deleterious effect on his patient’s welfare.
The SCERP ordered requires Dr. Pinto to engage a preceptor acceptable to the College to complete the SCERP, and to:
- engage in focused educational sessions with a preceptor acceptable to the College in the topic of office practice and management.
- maintain a log of requests for documentation throughout the preceptorship, noting all request details, dates of requests and responses to the requests.
- undergo a reassessment which will consist of a review of office practice and management approximately six months following the completion of the preceptorship.
Dr. Pinto appealed the decision to the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (“HPARB”), which confirmed the ICRC’s decision.
After the HPARB released its decision on June 2, 2015, the College’s Compliance Case Manager requested that Dr. Pinto propose the name of a preceptor for College approval so that Dr. Pinto could engage in the educational sessions ordered by the ICRC. Dr. Pinto proposed potential preceptors on June 22, and then on August 7 and August 12, 2015, who were either unacceptable to the College or unwilling to perform the task requested.
The Compliance Case Manager wrote to Dr. Pinto, through his counsel, on August 27, 2015 requesting that Dr. Pinto follow-up with a potential proposed preceptor. Dr. Pinto, through his counsel, indicated he would follow up. The Compliance Case Manager heard nothing further regarding this preceptor.
The Compliance Case Manager wrote to Dr. Pinto, through his counsel, on September 14 and September 23, 2015 requesting an update. The College received no response for some time.
On November 10, 2015, Dr. Pinto, through his counsel, was advised that if he did not provide the name of a preceptor by November 18, 2015, the Compliance Case Manager would bring this matter to the attention of the ICRC to consider his non-compliance with the SCERP.
On November 16, 2015, Dr. Pinto proposed another preceptor. However, the proposed preceptor had not been approached by Dr. Pinto and ultimately did not agree to act as preceptor.
When the ICRC considered Dr. Pinto’s failure to comply with the SCERP on February 10, 2016, Dr. Pinto had still not obtained a preceptor by that time. The ICRC referred allegations of professional misconduct to the Discipline Committee.
Dr. Pinto did not propose an additional preceptor until March 17, 2016, after allegations of professional misconduct were referred to the Discipline Committee. The College finally received an executed undertaking from an acceptable preceptor on April 25, 2016, almost one year after HPARB confirmed the ICRC’s SCERP.
Dr. Pinto’s preceptor provided a report to the College on August 15, 2016 and noted that Dr. Pinto has ailed to maintain a log of requests for documentation (noting all request details, dates of requests and responses to the requests) as required in the ICRC’s Order, referred to in paragraph 5 above. Dr. Pinto had begun to create an electronic log, but it was not complete and did not contain the required information.
PENALTY
On December 19, 2016, the Discipline Committee ordered and directed that:
- Dr. Pinto appear before the panel to be reprimanded.
- Dr. Pinto to pay costs to the College in the amount of $5,000.00 within thirty (30) days of the date this Order.