Allegations and Plea

The College alleged that the Member was found guilty of criminal offences, namely possession of stolen property under $5,000 and using a forged document, that are relevant to his suitability to practise; provided false or misleading information to his employer; misappropriated property from the workplace by billing for visits not made; failed to document appropriately; and engaged in conduct that would be regarded as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional.

The Member admitted to the allegations, and the College and the Member jointly submitted an agreement to the following facts.

Agreed Facts

At Facility A, the Member stole prescription pads and wrote five prescriptions in his name for oxycodone, forged the doctor’s signature and filled the prescriptions. The drugstore noted irregularities on the prescriptions, and the forgeries were uncovered. Criminal charges were laid. The Member pled guilty to knowingly using a forged prescription as if it were genuine. His employment at Facility A was terminated.

Before the guilty plea but after the laying of charges, the Member was offered a position at Facility B. He was required to provide a current criminal record check. He did not disclose his criminal charges. When the director of care learned of the charges, the Member maintained that the criminal charges and the College investigation had been dropped. He failed to provide an updated criminal record check when requested. His employment at Facility B was subsequently terminated.

The Member began working at Facility C after his guilty plea. He provided Facility C with an old criminal record check, which indicated that he had no outstanding convictions, charges, discharges or court orders.

The Member billed for a number of visits to three different clients even though he did not provide care to the clients on any of the dates in question. If the Member were to testify, then he would say that he followed protocol for dealing with clients who are not home for a scheduled visit.

Finding

The Panel found that the evidence supported findings of professional misconduct as alleged. When the breadth and scope of the misconduct is considered in its totality, the Member’s conduct casts doubt on his moral fitness and inherent ability to discharge the higher obligation the public expects from members of the profession. His conduct is disgraceful, dishonourable and unprofessional.

Submissions on Order

The College and the Member jointly sought an oral reprimand and an eight-month suspension. The Member would be required to complete specified remediation activities in preparation for a series of meetings with a nursing expert. For 24 months from the date the Member returns to practice, he would not be permitted to practise independently in the community, and would be required to advise the College of his employers, provide employers with a copy of the Panel’s decision and reasons, and only practise for an employer who agreed to advise the College if the Member breached the standards of practice of the profession.

Panel Order

The Panel found that, given the Member’s misconduct within the context of home care, a period of prohibition on independent practice in the community was reasonable and in the public interest. The Panel found that the penalty addressed the elements of general and specific deterrence, rehabilitation and public protection.

Read the full decision