The single allegation against Dr. Miller was contained in the Notice of Hearing dated February 19, 2003. The allegation was that Dr. Miller had:

Committed an act of professional misconduct in that he failed to abide by a written undertaking given to him by the College.

 

The chairman asked Dr. Miller if he understood the nature of the allegation against him; the range of sanctions that could be imposed upon a finding of professional misconduct; the consequences of admitting to the allegation and whether he had entered into this agreement voluntarily and without inappropriate pressure.

 

Dr. Miller indicated that he understood the above and that he was prepared to admit to the allegation.

 

The prosecutor filed an Agreed Statement of Facts. The Agreed Statement indicated that there were two complaints made against Dr. Miller and that the Complaints Committee, as a result of their investigation, had concerns about certain aspects of his practice. The Committee asked that Dr. Miller voluntarily participate in a practice assessment by the Quality Assurance Committee.

 

Dr. Miller met with the Registrar of the College and suggested an alternate method, one of peer review. The College agreed with this approach and, accordingly, Dr. Miller signed an Undertaking with the College on July 18, 2002 wherein he agreed to work with a coach of his choosing from a list recommended by the Registrar. The agreement called for a report to be filed by the reviewer after three months and at the conclusion of the six-month period of review.

 

When the three-month review report was not received by its specified time, a letter was sent to Dr. Miller requesting an explanation about the lack of action. Dr. Miller replied that he had not even selected a reviewer. On December 4, 200, Dr. Miller met with the Registrar to discuss the delay. In that meeting the terms of the agreement were reviewed and Dr. Miller was informed of the upcoming deadline of January 15, 2003 to have the reviewer's report forwarded to the College. A follow-up letter was sent to Dr. Miller on December 13, 2002 indicating the seriousness of the matter and that if the report was not received by the appropriate date the matter would be brought to the Executive Committee's attention. The Executive Committee referred one allegation of professional misconduct against Dr. Miller to the Discipline Committee.

 

The Discipline Committee found that Dr. Miller signed an agreement with the College and failed to live up to that undertaking. He was given ample opportunity to have the reviewer's reports sent to the College but it was only after referral to the Discipline Committee that there was any action on Dr. Miller's part. It was clear that Dr. Miller had a complete understanding of the steps required to address his standards of practice and record keeping problems and that he had agreed to these steps. The panel was concerned about the apparent lack of respect that Dr. Miller's inaction exhibited toward the profession and its self-governing policies. Undertakings are essential to the operation of Colleges and failure to live up to commitments is a serious breach of a professional's obligations.

 

It was clear to the Discipline Committee that the College had gone beyond its duty and had made adequate effort to have Dr. Miller find a reviewer and to have the required reports sent to the College. The panel reviewed the information provided in the Agreed Statement of Facts, and concluded that Dr. Miller had broken his covenant with the College. Accordingly, the panel decided to accept Dr. Miller's admission to the allegation and made a finding of professional misconduct.

 

The parties jointly agreed to the following sanction:

a) A reprimand to be recorded on the register in accordance with s.23(2)(f) of the Health Professions Procedural Code.
b) The member shall pay costs of $1,000.00 to the College which costs are payable immediately.

 

The panel reviewed the proposed sanction and decided that it was appropriate. The panel was of the view that a publicly recorded reprimand is a serious penalty to a health professional and that it would also serve as a general deterrent to the profession. The costs reflect a portion of the extra work required of the College to bring the member into a position to meet his obligations under his signed agreement.

 

The member waived his right to appeal and the reprimand was administered.