THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION WAS OBTAINED FROM THE PHYSICIAN REGISTER SECTION OF THE WEBSITE OF THE COLLEGE OF PHYSICIANS AND SURGEONS OF ONTARIO (WWW.CPSO.ON.CA) AS OF THE DATE AND TIME NOTED BELOW
27/04/25 06:30:53 AM

General Information

Former Name: No Former Name
Medical School: National University of Ireland, 1971
Gender: Man
Languages Spoken: ENGLISH, FRENCH, GAELIC, ITALIAN, SPANISH

Practice Information

Primary Business Location: Address not Available
Business Email: No Information Available
Phone: No Information Available
Fax: No Information Available

Specialties

No Specialty Reported

Hospital Privileges

No information available

Professional Corporation Information

Corporation Name: David Hill Medicine Professional Corporation
Certificate of Authorization Status: Inactive End Date: 12 May 2016

General Information

Former Name: No Former Name
Gender: Man
Languages Spoken: ENGLISH, FRENCH, GAELIC, ITALIAN, SPANISH
Medical School: National University of Ireland, 1971

Practice Information

Primary Business Location: Address not Available
Business Email: No Information Available
Phone: No Information Available
Fax: No Information Available

Specialties

No Specialty Reported

Hospital Privileges

No information available

Professional Corporation Information

Corporation Name: David Hill Medicine Professional Corporation
Certificate of Authorization Status: Inactive End Date: 12 May 2016

Practice Conditions

This physician is inactive (Expired, Resigned, Suspended, Revoked, or Deceased) and is not permitted to practise medicine.
This physician is inactive (Expired, Resigned, Suspended, Revoked, or Deceased) and is not permitted to practise medicine.

Current Tribunal Proceedings

No information available

Past Tribunal Proceedings (1)

Date of Decision: 02 Dec 2016
Summary of Decision:
On December 2, 2016, the Discipline Committee found that Dr. David James Hill has engaged in an act of professional misconduct in that he has failed to maintain the standard of practice of the profession; 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; and is incompetent as defined by the Code.

Dr. Hill, a family physician with a solo office practice in Toronto, retired from active practice in 2015.

Patient A, Dr. Hill’s former patient, made a complaint to the College that Dr. Hill had missed a diagnosis of colon cancer. Patient A’s complaint led to an investigation by the College. The matter was ultimately referred to the Discipline Committee.

FAILURE TO MAINTAIN THE STANDARD OF PRACTICE

The Committee found that Dr. Hill failed to maintain the standard of practice of the profession with respect to Patient A:
  1. Although Dr. Hill saw Patient A on dozens of occasions, visits were devoted exclusively to treating episodic and chronic illness and minimal attention was paid to prevention of disease;
  2. Dr. Hill’s notes with respect to Patient A were vague and repetitive with little documentation of physical findings or specifics with regard to history, investigations, or treatment;
  3. The cumulative patient profile (CPP) used by Dr. Hill was out of date and incomplete with important data on family history missing;
  4. Dr. Hill failed to document a proper family history, which may have led to a screening colonoscopy; and
  5. Dr. Hill failed to properly document or investigate Patient A’s abdominal pain in 2010, which may have led to a delay in the diagnosis of his cancer.

The Committee also found that Dr. Hill failed to maintain the standard of practice of the profession in his record keeping in Patient A’s case and in 24 of the other 25 patient cases that were reviewed.

An expert retained by Dr. Hill opined that Dr. Hill’s charting fell below the standard of practice of the profession for recordkeeping, describing Dr. Hill’s documentation of patient records as “unacceptably brief” and agreed with the College expert that there was a marked deterioration after 2010, saying “the documentation of patient encounters most often is too deficient to permit a full and fair determination of the quality of care Dr. Hill’s patients receive.”

The Committee also found that Dr. Hill failed to maintain the standard of practice of the profession with respect to his recordkeeping by copying sections of notes from one patient file to another.

The Committee additionally found that Dr. Hill failed to maintain the standard of practice of the profession with respect to his investigation of patient complaints and referrals for testing. In some cases, Dr. Hill under-investigated complaints. In other cases, he over-investigated.

The Committee further found that Dr. Hill failed to maintain the standard of practice of the profession with respect to his treatment of diabetic patients. The College expert opined that Dr. Hill’s diabetic control for one particular patient was “terrible with no indication of referral to a diabetes education program, discussions with the patient, or a referral to an endocrinologist.” The expert retained by Dr. Hill supported the College expert’s concerns with respect to this patient.

DISGRACEFUL, DISHONORABLE, OR UNPROFESSIONAL CONDUCT

The Committee found that Dr. Hill engaged in conduct that was disgraceful, dishonorable, or unprofessional in two respects: in his communications with Patient A; and in his falsification of patient records.

Although Patient A’s demands for financial compensation following the diagnosis of his rectal cancer may have been inappropriate, Dr. Hill’s response was unprofessional in trying to paint Patient A as a person with mental health issues.

The College expert testified that falsification of records by duplicating patient charts occurred in 11 of the 26 charts he reviewed. Chart pages were duplicated and reproduced in anywhere between one to five other patient charts. The College expert determined that for one chart, the entire clinical record was a forgery.

Dr. Hill admitted to copying charts, and testified that this practice went on over a period of five to seven years. However, the Committee found that forgeries were evident in the charts going back to 2004.

INCOMPETENCE

The Committee determined that Dr. Hill’s charting and patient care reflects a lack of knowledge, skill and judgment to an extent that demonstrates that he is unfit to continue to practise or that his practice should be restricted. The Committee found that Dr. Hill is incompetent.

The College expert concluded that since at least 2010, Dr. Hill’s level of practice has seriously degraded to the point where he believes Dr. Hill to be incompetent and engaging in substandard care. He also concluded that Dr. Hill had significant knowledge gaps for common medical conditions and often under-investigated or over-investigated patients. There was no evidence that Dr. Hill had any insight into his failures or had changed his practice to comply with the standards of practice of the profession.

PENALTY

On March 9, 2017, the Discipline Committee reserved its decision on penalty. On May 17, 2017, the Discipline Committee released its decision on penalty and ordered that:
 
  • The Registrar revoke Dr. Hill certificate of registration, effective immediately.
  • Dr. Hill attend before the panel to be reprimanded, within 60 days of the date this order becomes final.
  • Dr. Hill pay costs in the amount of $69,538.00, within 60 days of the date this order becomes final.

APPEAL

On December 27, 2016, Dr. Hill appealed the Discipline Committee’s decision on finding and on June 10, 2017, Dr. Hill appealed the Committee’s penalty decision to the Divisional Court of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. Pursuant to s.71 of the Code, the Discipline Committee’s decision remained in effect despite the appeal. On October 3, 2018, the Divisional Court dismissed Dr. Hill’s appeal and ordered that Dr. Hill pay costs of the appeal in the agreed upon amount of $10,000.00.

On October 16, 2018, Dr. Hill filed a motion for leave to appeal the decision of the Divisional Court to the Court of Appeal. The motion for leave to appeal was dismissed by the Court of Appeal on March 15, 2019. Dr. Hill was ordered to pay costs to the College in the amount of $1,000.00.
 
Reasons for Decision: Download Full Decision (PDF)
Appeal: Appeal Dismissed
Appeal Decision Date: October 3, 2018
Hearing Date(s): Hearing Dates: February 16, 17, March 1, 2 and March 28, 29, 30, 2016, June 3, 2016 Penalty Hearing Date: March 9, 2017

Other Notifications (2)

Source: Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee
Effective Date: 06 Sep 2017
Summary:
Caution-in-Person and Specified Continuing Education and Remediation Program

A summary of a decision of the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (“ICRC”) in which the disposition includes a "caution-in-person" or a Specified Continuing Education and Remediation Program (“SCERP”) is required by the College by-laws to be posted on the register, along with a note if the decision has been appealed. A “caution-in-person” disposition requires the physician to attend at the College and be verbally cautioned by a panel of ICRC. A SCERP is one of the dispositions that the College’s ICRC may make in connection with a matter before it, and this disposition requires the member to complete an education and remediation program specified for the member. A note will also be posted when all the elements of the SCERP have been completed.

Summaries will be removed from the register if the decision is overturned on appeal or review. This posting requirement only applies to decisions arising out of a complaint dated on or after January 1, 2015 or if there was no complaint, the first appointment of investigators dated on or after January 1, 2015.

See PDF for the summary of a decision made against this member in which the disposition includes a Caution-in-Person and a SCERP: 

Download Full Document (PDF)
Source: Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee
Effective Date: 06 Sep 2017
Summary:
Caution-in-Person:

A summary of a decision of the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee in which the disposition includes a "caution-in-person" is required by the College by-laws to be posted on the register, along with a note if the decision has been appealed. A “caution-in-person” disposition requires the physician to attend at the College and be verbally cautioned by a panel of the Committee. The summary will be removed from the register if the decision is overturned on appeal or review. Note that this requirement only applies to decisions arising out of a complaint dated on or after January 1, 2015 or if there was no complaint, the first appointment of investigators dated on or after January 1, 2015.

See PDF for the summary of a decision made against this member in which the disposition includes a caution-in-person:

Download Full Document (PDF)

Current Tribunal Proceedings

No information available

Past Tribunal Proceedings (1)

Date of Decision: 02 Dec 2016
Summary of Decision:
On December 2, 2016, the Discipline Committee found that Dr. David James Hill has engaged in an act of professional misconduct in that he has failed to maintain the standard of practice of the profession; 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; and is incompetent as defined by the Code.

Dr. Hill, a family physician with a solo office practice in Toronto, retired from active practice in 2015.

Patient A, Dr. Hill’s former patient, made a complaint to the College that Dr. Hill had missed a diagnosis of colon cancer. Patient A’s complaint led to an investigation by the College. The matter was ultimately referred to the Discipline Committee.

FAILURE TO MAINTAIN THE STANDARD OF PRACTICE

The Committee found that Dr. Hill failed to maintain the standard of practice of the profession with respect to Patient A:
  1. Although Dr. Hill saw Patient A on dozens of occasions, visits were devoted exclusively to treating episodic and chronic illness and minimal attention was paid to prevention of disease;
  2. Dr. Hill’s notes with respect to Patient A were vague and repetitive with little documentation of physical findings or specifics with regard to history, investigations, or treatment;
  3. The cumulative patient profile (CPP) used by Dr. Hill was out of date and incomplete with important data on family history missing;
  4. Dr. Hill failed to document a proper family history, which may have led to a screening colonoscopy; and
  5. Dr. Hill failed to properly document or investigate Patient A’s abdominal pain in 2010, which may have led to a delay in the diagnosis of his cancer.

The Committee also found that Dr. Hill failed to maintain the standard of practice of the profession in his record keeping in Patient A’s case and in 24 of the other 25 patient cases that were reviewed.

An expert retained by Dr. Hill opined that Dr. Hill’s charting fell below the standard of practice of the profession for recordkeeping, describing Dr. Hill’s documentation of patient records as “unacceptably brief” and agreed with the College expert that there was a marked deterioration after 2010, saying “the documentation of patient encounters most often is too deficient to permit a full and fair determination of the quality of care Dr. Hill’s patients receive.”

The Committee also found that Dr. Hill failed to maintain the standard of practice of the profession with respect to his recordkeeping by copying sections of notes from one patient file to another.

The Committee additionally found that Dr. Hill failed to maintain the standard of practice of the profession with respect to his investigation of patient complaints and referrals for testing. In some cases, Dr. Hill under-investigated complaints. In other cases, he over-investigated.

The Committee further found that Dr. Hill failed to maintain the standard of practice of the profession with respect to his treatment of diabetic patients. The College expert opined that Dr. Hill’s diabetic control for one particular patient was “terrible with no indication of referral to a diabetes education program, discussions with the patient, or a referral to an endocrinologist.” The expert retained by Dr. Hill supported the College expert’s concerns with respect to this patient.

DISGRACEFUL, DISHONORABLE, OR UNPROFESSIONAL CONDUCT

The Committee found that Dr. Hill engaged in conduct that was disgraceful, dishonorable, or unprofessional in two respects: in his communications with Patient A; and in his falsification of patient records.

Although Patient A’s demands for financial compensation following the diagnosis of his rectal cancer may have been inappropriate, Dr. Hill’s response was unprofessional in trying to paint Patient A as a person with mental health issues.

The College expert testified that falsification of records by duplicating patient charts occurred in 11 of the 26 charts he reviewed. Chart pages were duplicated and reproduced in anywhere between one to five other patient charts. The College expert determined that for one chart, the entire clinical record was a forgery.

Dr. Hill admitted to copying charts, and testified that this practice went on over a period of five to seven years. However, the Committee found that forgeries were evident in the charts going back to 2004.

INCOMPETENCE

The Committee determined that Dr. Hill’s charting and patient care reflects a lack of knowledge, skill and judgment to an extent that demonstrates that he is unfit to continue to practise or that his practice should be restricted. The Committee found that Dr. Hill is incompetent.

The College expert concluded that since at least 2010, Dr. Hill’s level of practice has seriously degraded to the point where he believes Dr. Hill to be incompetent and engaging in substandard care. He also concluded that Dr. Hill had significant knowledge gaps for common medical conditions and often under-investigated or over-investigated patients. There was no evidence that Dr. Hill had any insight into his failures or had changed his practice to comply with the standards of practice of the profession.

PENALTY

On March 9, 2017, the Discipline Committee reserved its decision on penalty. On May 17, 2017, the Discipline Committee released its decision on penalty and ordered that:
 
  • The Registrar revoke Dr. Hill certificate of registration, effective immediately.
  • Dr. Hill attend before the panel to be reprimanded, within 60 days of the date this order becomes final.
  • Dr. Hill pay costs in the amount of $69,538.00, within 60 days of the date this order becomes final.

APPEAL

On December 27, 2016, Dr. Hill appealed the Discipline Committee’s decision on finding and on June 10, 2017, Dr. Hill appealed the Committee’s penalty decision to the Divisional Court of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. Pursuant to s.71 of the Code, the Discipline Committee’s decision remained in effect despite the appeal. On October 3, 2018, the Divisional Court dismissed Dr. Hill’s appeal and ordered that Dr. Hill pay costs of the appeal in the agreed upon amount of $10,000.00.

On October 16, 2018, Dr. Hill filed a motion for leave to appeal the decision of the Divisional Court to the Court of Appeal. The motion for leave to appeal was dismissed by the Court of Appeal on March 15, 2019. Dr. Hill was ordered to pay costs to the College in the amount of $1,000.00.
 
Reasons for Decision: Download Full Decision (PDF)
Appeal: Appeal Dismissed
Appeal Decision Date: October 3, 2018
Hearing Date(s): Hearing Dates: February 16, 17, March 1, 2 and March 28, 29, 30, 2016, June 3, 2016 Penalty Hearing Date: March 9, 2017

Other Notifications (2)

Source: Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee
Effective Date: 06 Sep 2017
Summary:
Caution-in-Person and Specified Continuing Education and Remediation Program

A summary of a decision of the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (“ICRC”) in which the disposition includes a "caution-in-person" or a Specified Continuing Education and Remediation Program (“SCERP”) is required by the College by-laws to be posted on the register, along with a note if the decision has been appealed. A “caution-in-person” disposition requires the physician to attend at the College and be verbally cautioned by a panel of ICRC. A SCERP is one of the dispositions that the College’s ICRC may make in connection with a matter before it, and this disposition requires the member to complete an education and remediation program specified for the member. A note will also be posted when all the elements of the SCERP have been completed.

Summaries will be removed from the register if the decision is overturned on appeal or review. This posting requirement only applies to decisions arising out of a complaint dated on or after January 1, 2015 or if there was no complaint, the first appointment of investigators dated on or after January 1, 2015.

See PDF for the summary of a decision made against this member in which the disposition includes a Caution-in-Person and a SCERP: 

Download Full Document (PDF)
Source: Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee
Effective Date: 06 Sep 2017
Summary:
Caution-in-Person:

A summary of a decision of the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee in which the disposition includes a "caution-in-person" is required by the College by-laws to be posted on the register, along with a note if the decision has been appealed. A “caution-in-person” disposition requires the physician to attend at the College and be verbally cautioned by a panel of the Committee. The summary will be removed from the register if the decision is overturned on appeal or review. Note that this requirement only applies to decisions arising out of a complaint dated on or after January 1, 2015 or if there was no complaint, the first appointment of investigators dated on or after January 1, 2015.

See PDF for the summary of a decision made against this member in which the disposition includes a caution-in-person:

Download Full Document (PDF)

Training

Medical School: National University of Ireland, 1971

Registration History

DETAILS DATE
Revoked: Discipline Committee. Effective: 17 May 2017
Suspension of registration imposed: Discipline Committee Effective: 24 Sep 2015
Terms and conditions amended by Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee. Effective: 24 Jun 2015
Transfer of class of registration to: Restricted Certificate Effective: 17 Dec 2014
Arrow_iconTerms and conditions imposed on certificate by: Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee Effective: 17 Dec 2014
Transfer of class of registration to: Independent Practice Certificate Effective: 04 Sep 1975
First certificate of registration issued: Temporary Employment Certificate Effective: 29 Jan 1975
DETAILS: Revoked: Discipline Committee.
Date: Effective: 17 May 2017
DETAILS: Suspension of registration imposed: Discipline Committee
Date: Effective: 24 Sep 2015
DETAILS: Terms and conditions amended by Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee.
Date: Effective: 24 Jun 2015
DETAILS: Transfer of class of registration to: Restricted Certificate
Date: Effective: 17 Dec 2014
DETAILS: Terms and conditions imposed on certificate by: Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee
Date: Effective: 17 Dec 2014
DETAILS: Transfer of class of registration to: Independent Practice Certificate
Date: Effective: 04 Sep 1975
DETAILS: First certificate of registration issued: Temporary Employment Certificate
Date: Effective: 29 Jan 1975