DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE COLLEGE OF CHIROPRACTORS OF ONTARIO Panel: Dr. James Laws (Chair, Professional Elected Member) Dr. David Gohn (Professional Appointed Member) Mr. Ganesan Sugumar (Public Member) Ms. Lynn Daigneault (Public Member) IN THE MATTER OF a hearing of a panel of the Discipline Commitice of the College of Chiropractors of Ontario (“College”) held pursuant to the provisions of the Health Professions Procedural Code (*Code") of the Regulated Health Professions Aci, 1991, 8.0. 1991, ¢. 18 RHPA") respecting Dr. Bruce Fuhrman of the City of Ottawa, in the Province of Ontario; COLLEGE OF CHIROPRACTORS —) Chris Paliare OF ONTARIO ) for the College of Chiropractors of Ontario ) AND ) DR. BRUCE FUBRMAN Helen Pelton (REGISTRATION #2349 for Dr. Bruce Fuhrman ) ) ) ) Mr. Brian Gover, ) Independent Legal Counsel ) ) Heard Electronically: September 21, 2005 DECISION AND REASONS Intros im This matter came on for hearing electronically by teleconference call before a panel of thé Discipline Committee of the College of Chiropractors of Ontario (the “College”), on September, 21, 2005. The Allegations The allegations against Dr. Bruce Fuhrman (the “Member”) as stated in the Notice of Hearing dated May 12, 2005 (Exhibit #1) on which the College proceeded were as follows1. You have committed an act of professional misconduct as provided by subsection Si(I)(©) of the Health Professions Procedural Code of the Chiropractic Act, 1991, $.0. 1991, ¢. 21, as amended, and paragraph 1(2) of Ontario Regulation 852/93, in that during the period September 21, 2001 to November 7, 2001, you contravened a standard of practice of the profession ot failed to maintain the standards of practice expected of members of the profession with respect fo your assessment, treatment and documentation concerning a patient known as “Mrs. J. V2"; 3. You have committed an act of professional misconduct as provided by subsection S1(1)(0) of the Health Professions Procedural Code of the Chiropractic Act, 1991, 8.0. 1991, ¢. 21, as amended, and paragraph 1(14) of Ontario Regulation 852/93, in that during the period September 21, 2001 to November 7, 2001, you provided diagnostic or therapeutic services that were not necessary to a patient known as "Mrs. J.V."; 6. You have committed an act of professional misconduct as provided by subsection 51(1}(c) of the Health Professions Procedural Code of the Chiropractic Act, 1991, 8.0. 1991, ¢. 21, as amended, and paragraph 1(21) of Ontario Regulation 852/93, in that during the period September 21, 2001 to February 4, 2002, you failed, without reasonable cause, to provide reports or certificates relating to the examination or treatments you performed within a reasonable time after a patient known as “Mrs. J.V.” requested such a report or certificate concerning herself and/or a patient known as “Ms $.M."; 9. You have committed an act of professional misconduct as provided by subsection 51(1}(0) of the Health Professions Procedural Code of the Chiropractic Act, 1991, 8.0. 1991, c. 21, as amended, and paragraph 1(24) of Ontario Regulation 852/93, in that during the period September 21, 2001 to February 4, 2002, you failed to disclose to a patient known as “Mrs, J.V.” and/ot 4 patient known as “Ms S.M." the fee for a service before the service was provided, including a fee not payable by the patient or patients; 12, You have committed an act of professional misconduct as provided by subsection S51(I)(e) of the Health Professions Procedural Code of the Chiropractic Act, 1991, 8.0. 1991, ¢, 21, as amended, and paragraph 1(33) of Ontario Regulation 852/93, in that during the period September 21, 2001 to February 4, 2002, you engaged in conduct or performed an act or acts that, having rogard to all the circumstances, would reasonably be regarded by members as disgracefil, dishonourable or unprofessional with respect to your assessment, treatment, documentation and communications with a patient known as “Mrs. J.V.” and/or a patient known as “Ms. S.M.”Member’s Pleato ‘The College did not proceed in relation to 7 other allegations contained in the Notice of Hearing, By entering into the Agreed Statement of Facts (Exhibit #2), the Member admitted the allegations set out above, although it should be noted that the Member’s admission in relation to allegations #1 and #12 was limited in the manner des: red in the Agreed Statement of Facts, ‘The panel conducted a plea inquiry and was satisfied that the Member's admission was voluntary, informed and unequivocal Agreed Statement of Facts Counsel for the College advised the panel that agreement had been reached on the facts and introduced an Agreed Statement of Facts (Exhibit #2), which provided as follows: kground 1 On October 26. 2001, "Mrs. J.V." contacted Dr. Fuhrman to set up an appointment because his office listing, as indicated in the Yellow Pages, was down the street from where she works. She subsequently leamed that he was not at the listed address but was practising out of his home. Even though this location ‘was not as convenient, she felt obligated to follow through with the appointment to find out what was wrong with her left hip which she had injured Mrs. J.V. feels that the atmosphere at Dr. Fubrman's home was not at all professional. ‘The adjustment table was set up in the middle of the living room and there were boxes everywhere. Mrs. J.V. was uncomfortable with the lack of privacy. ‘There was no curtain for ptivacy and no gown was provided. Dr. Fubrman charged Mrs. J.V. $121.40 for her first visit, even though the consultation was advertised as free and he did not adjust her. Dr. Fuhrman misrepresented his fees by quoting a cost excluding the portion covered by OHIP. Mrs. J.V. expected to know the total of what was being charged, regardless of who was paying. Mrs, J.V. did not receive a refund fiom Dr, Fubrman for the small amount of credit that had accurnulated. Dr. Fuhrman did perform acupuncture on Mrs. J.V. even though she did not ask for it and told himn that she hated needles. Mrs. J.V. requested that Dr. Fuhrman provide invoices and reports of finding both for herself and her daughter, After repeated requests, Dr, Fuhrman finally made this information available, but the dates and numbers of treatments were incorrect.a ‘The Complaint and Investigatory Process 7. 10, Wh 12, B ‘The College received a complaint from Mrs. J.V, on or about December 13th, 2001, and began an investigation of the complaint, On March 19th, 2002 the College sent to the Member at his last known address a summary of Mrs. J.V.s allegations and indicated that he could make written submissions to the Complaints Committee on or before April 24th, 2002. On April 25", 2002 the Member telephoned the College and indicated that he was not currently in Ottawa and was receiving treatment for a back injury. The Member requested extra time to respond. He was advised of the seriousness of the complaints process, the requirement to respond to the complaint as soon as possible and that the committee would not be prepared to wait more than a couple of extra weeks, The Member assured the College that he would send in a response but did not commit to a specific date. On May 17th, 2002, the College wrote to the Member indicating that unless his response was received by June 5", 2002 the College's Complaints Committee would consider his complaint without the benefit of information from him. The Member again failed to respond. On February 14th, 2003, the College once again wrote to the Member advising him that his reply was required by February 28th. 2003. In July 2003 the Complaints Committee appointed an investigator pursuant to s 75(c) of the Regulated Health Professions (Code), Schedule 2 to the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991 to investigate Mrs. J.V:s complaint, ‘The Investigator spoke with the Member on July 30th, 2003 and advised him of the nature of her appointment. ‘The Member stated that he was calling from out West and would not be back in Ontario until the end of August. The Member stated that he was not practicing due to a lower back problem. ‘The investigator then left a series of voice messages for the Member between August and late November. He never returned any of those calls. ‘The investigator completed her investigation and prepared a report dated January 14", 2004. ‘The Member has failed to provide to the College his records of the treatment he provided to Mrs. 3.V. ‘The Member agrees that the above conduct constitutes professional misconduct contrary to Ontario Regulation 852/93 in the following manner: a 82 Contravening a standard of practice of the profession or failing to maintain the standard of practice expected of members of the profession; namely, violating the record-keeping standard of practice; D. 8.14 Providing a diagnostic or therapeutic service that is not necessary;©. s.21 Failing, without reasonable cause, to provide a report or certificate relating to an examination ot treatment performed by the member within a reasonable time after a patient has requested such a report or certificat d. 5.24 Failing to disclose to a patient the fee for a service before the service is provided, including a fee not payable by the patient; €. 5.33 Engaging in conduct or performing an act that having regard to all the circumstances would reasonably be regarded by members as unprofessional. namely his office premises were not maintained to ensure a patient's privacy and confidentiality, and his failure to respond to the College with respect to Mrs. J.V.'s complaint in a timely fashion, or at all. 14. The member agrees not to appeal or request any review of the decision of the pancl of the Discipline Committee in this matter. 15. The Member acknowledges that he has obtained independent legal advice from a lawyer of his choosing prior to entering into the Agreed Statement of Facts and Joint Submission on Penalty dated September 21, 2005, in this matter. 16. ‘The Member agrees that he understands the nature of the allegations made against him and understands that by admitting the allegations, he is waiving the right to require the College prove its case against him. The Member acknowledges that he understands the consequences of admitting to the allegations and has voluntarily agreed to admit to the allegations set out in paragraph 20 of this Agreed Statement of Facts. The Member understands that the Panel is not bound to accept the Joint Submission on Penalty dated September 21, 2005, but may impose any penalty permitted by section 51(2) of the Health Professions Procedural Code, being, Schedule 2 to the Regulated Health Professions Act. ‘The panel considered the Agreed Statement of Facts and finds that the facts support a finding of professional misconduct and, in particular, finds that the Member committed an act of professional misconduct as alleged in allegations of the Notice of Hearing in that the Member: contravened a standard of practice of the profession or failed to maintain the standard of practice expected of members of the profession; namely, he violated the record-keeping standard of practice; b. provided a diagnostic or therapeutic service that is not necessary; failed, without reasonable cause, to provide a report or certificate relating to ‘an examination or treatment performed by the member within a reasonable time after a patient requested such a report or certificate;Penalty 4. failed to disclose to a patient the fee for a service before the service was provided, including a fee not payable by the patient; fe. engaged in conduct or performed an act that having regard to all the circumstances would reasonably be regarded by members as unprofessional: namely his office promises were not maintained to ensure a patient's privacy and confidentiality, and he failed to respond to the College with respect to Mrs. J.V's complaint in a timely fashion, or at all. Counsel of the College advised the panel that « Joint Submission as to Penalty (“Exhibit #3) had been agreed upon. The Joint Submission as to Penalty called for a penalty Order that would provide as follows: The College and the Member jointly submit that the panel of the Discipline Committee make an order; 1 Directing the Registrar to suspend the Member's certificate of registration for a petiod of 12 weeks. Six weeks of the suspension will be suspended if the Member fulfills the following specified conditions: ‘The Member will provide evidence of successful completion of a course in record keeping approved of by the Registrar within 3 months of the date of the hearing of this matter; ii, The Member will undergo the College’s peer assessment within 3 months of the date of the decision in this matter and agrees to undertake and complete in a timely manner any recommendations by the College following which he will advise the Registrar; iii, The Member will immediately advise the Registrar of his current address and any changes of address if he moves his practice; iv, The Member will pay $1,500.00 to the College within I year of the date of the hearing in this matter. Requiring the Member to appear before the panel fo be reprimanded. That the results of this proceeding be recorded in the public portion of the register and published in the College’s Annual Report.‘The panel concluded that the proposed penalty is reasonable and in the public interest. ‘The panel also notes that this resolution of the case was endorsed at the pre-hearing conference. The ‘Member has co-operated with the College and, by agreeing to the facts and the proposed penalty, has accepted responsibility for his actions and has avoided unnecessary expense to the College. ‘The Member is to attend before the Discipline panel on November 24, 2005, in order that an oral reprimand can be administered. 1, Dr. James Laws, sign this decision and reasons for the decision as Chair of this Discipline panel and on behalf of the members of the Discipline panel as listed below: ait, Date = / Se CLC a0e.9 S AST HOUEKB EL NOOS™ Cc Dr. David Gohn, Mr. Ganesan Sugumar Ms. Lynn Daigneault