Allegations and Plea

The College alleged that the Member threw milk on a client; was not truthful about her conduct toward the client; prepared a false reference letter and impersonated a reference while applying for a new job; and engaged in conduct that would be regarded as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional.

The Member was neither present nor represented by counsel at the hearing. The hearing proceeded on the basis that the Member denied the allegations.

Evidence

The Panel heard from six witnesses and received 13 exhibits. The Member worked at a long-term care facility. After lunch one day, the Member approached the Client, who was known to be aggressive and resistant to care, and attempted to remove the Client from the dining room. The Client became upset and threw a glass of liquid at the Member. The Member picked up a glass of milk and threw the contents in the Client’s face and on her hair, asked, “How do you like that?” and laughed. When a co-worker said that the Member could not do that, the Member replied, “Come on, you know I was just kidding.” The Member was terminated from her position.
In a response letter, the Member wrote that she slipped on some spilled liquid on the floor, which caused the contents of the glass of milk to land on the Client. Eyewitnesses fabricated their report to the general manager because the Member threatened to write them up for allowing the liquid to be on the floor.

Shortly thereafter, the Member applied for a job at another facility. She provided a reference letter from the director of nursing (DON) at her previous employer, but said that the DON was off work after knee surgery and would have to be contacted on her cell phone number listed at the bottom of the letter. The interviewer phoned the number and spoke to someone. She also phoned the facility directly and was surprised to find that the DON was not off work and had not issued the letter of reference.
The College also tendered an expert witness, who opined that the Member’s behaviour amounted to abuse. The expert opined that the Member’s conduct in throwing milk at the Client was humiliating and disrespectful. The Member breached the Ethics standard by not being honest or acting with integrity in her version of events. Falsification of the reference letter was an elaborate attempt to deceive, contrary to the Ethics standard.

Finding

The Panel found that the evidence supported findings of professional misconduct as alleged. Her conduct would be regarded as disgraceful, dishonourable and unprofessional.

Submissions on Order

The College sought an oral reprimand and a five-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 she returns to clinical nursing practice, she would be required to advise the College of her 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.

The College submitted that there were no mitigating factors. The Member also had a history with the College. The Complaints Committee issued a letter of caution and required her to attend for an oral caution in 2001 in relation to abuse of elderly clients and co-workers; the Executive Committee issued a letter of concern in 2007 in relation to falsification of clients’ blood glucose records.

Panel Order

The Panel accepted the submission, indicating that, should the Member decide to return to practice, the penalty will remediate her before she is able to resume nursing duties, thereby serving to protect the public, co-workers and clients.

Read the full decision