Doc pleads guilty to conducting improper exams

A Winnipeg doctor is awaiting the results of a disciplinary hearing after admitting she failed to conduct proper physical examinations, kept poor records and intentionally misled investigators from the provincial physician watchdog.

The woman appeared before a College of Physicians and Surgeons of Manitoba panel Thursday afternoon and pleaded guilty to the offences, and others, stemming from five patient complaints made between 2021 and 2023.

Details about her identity and the clinic where she practices cannot be reported, owing to a publication ban in place until the panel renders its final decision.

Saul Simmonds, the lawyer who represented the woman during the hearing, described his client as a “likable, caring, concerned physician” who has made some mistakes, but “only wants the best for her patients.”

“You have before you someone who has been humbled by her own errors,” Simmonds told the panel. “It’s not an easy thing for any of us, particularly professionals, to recognize that we’ve made mistakes.”

The doctor has been subject to terms and conditions that limit her patient volume and restrict her from providing care without regular supervision from a designated practice supervisor for more than one year.

Kathleen McCandless, senior legal counsel for the college’s complaints and investigations department, said the investigations committee found concerns with the doctor’s ability to deliver care and resolve conflicts with patients.

In one complaint, a patient said they visited the doctor after finding a lesion on their genitals they feared may be a sexually transmitted infection. The patient complained they did not receive an adequate physical assessment, and the doctor did not fully review their medical history or provide information about possible symptoms and treatments, McCandless said.

The doctor originally told an investigator from the college she took a medical history of the patient and provided them with educational materials about sexually transmitted infections. She later admitted this was not true, the panel heard.

In another incident, a patient who visited the doctor while suffering from pain in her legs said she was not physically examined and instead referred for an X-ray without sufficient explanation, McCandless said.

The doctor told an investigator she did examine the patient, but said the woman was “physically intimidating.” The doctor later admitted to misrepresenting the interaction, she said.

That patient was present during Thursday’s hearing and provided the panel with a written victim impact statement that was not read aloud.

The doctor remained silent throughout the proceedings, at one point reaching over to hold the hand of a woman seated beside her in support.

The panel acknowledged the doctor was not required to appear at the hearing in person, but chose to do so anyway.

The other complaints similarly involved allegations of inadequate examinations, poor patient interactions and misleading investigators.

McCandless and Simmonds presented a joint recommendation to the disciplinary panel, urging the college to reprimand the doctor with a public statement and keep her under supervision with practice limitations for at least six months.

Those conditions could be altered after the college completes an audit to determine whether she is providing care that is safe, effective and compliant with professional standards.

The lawyers also recommended she pay costs associated with the investigation and the monitoring requirements, at an agreed-upon amount of $30,000.

Simmonds said the practice supervisors who have been working with the doctor have raised no issues with her ability to deliver care and identified no risk to public safety.

He stressed his client is “very regretful” and complied fully with the enhanced supervision requirements, resulting in no new complaints.

“As a woman who has overcome many obstacles, she has allowed herself to be examined in almost every aspect,” he said. “She is accepting all of her responsibility with the professionalism that one would expect.”

The college panel must deliver its final decision within 90 days of the disciplinary hearing.

It is uncommon for a panel to overrule a joint recommendation, except in extreme circumstances, McCandless said.

tyler.searle@freepress.mb.ca