More   en français

Publications & Resources > The Standard > March 2006

   Last modified: March 2006

Summarized Discipline Decisions

The following decisions and reasons of the Discipline Committee form part of the College’s annual report and are published as a requirement of the Regulated Health Professions Act. By publishing these decisions, the College educates nurses and informs the public about what does and does not constitute professional misconduct and incompetence. These decisions also provide direction to RN s and RPNs on practice standards and professional behaviour should they find themselves in similar situations.

The name of the member who is the subject of the hearing may or may not be included, depending on the decision of the Panel of the Discipline Committee. Information revealing the names of witnesses and clients has been removed. Following a decision by Council, the institutions/agencies where the incidents occurred may be identified. If this unduly increases the likelihood of identifying clients, the facility is not named.

For copies of full decisions, visit the website www.cno.org, Investigations and Hearings section, or contact Bill Clarke at 416 928-0900 or 1 800 387-5526, ext. 6327.

IMPROPER TOUCHING OF CLIENTS

Courtney Babb, RPN IG-8144-4 Hamilton

Allegations and Plea

The College alleged that the member committed acts of professional misconduct by improperly touching two clients.

The member admitted to the allegations, and the College and the member submitted a written statement to the Panel in which they agreed to the following facts.

Agreed Statement of Facts

Two senior clients reported that the member had touched them on the arm and asked to feel their muscles. One of the clients indicated that the member had asked the client for a hug and that the client had complied. The other client reported that the member had asked to see the client’s muscles and touched the client on the arm on approximately 10 occasions. The client also indicated that the member had put his arms around the client.

Finding

The Panel found that the facts supported a finding that the member committed professional misconduct as alleged.

Submission on Penalty

The College and the member jointly sought an oral reprimand and a 90-day suspension. They also sought a requirement that, within four months, the member complete the One is One Too Many abuse prevention program and meet with a Practice Consultant to discuss the incident. It was further submitted that for one year upon his return to nursing, the member inform the College of any employers and notify his employers of the Panel’s decision.

Penalty

The Panel accepted the joint submission as reasonable and in the public interest. It noted that the member cooperated with the College and, by agreeing to the facts and penalty, accepted responsibility for his actions. The penalty meets the goals of specific and general deterrence, rehabilitation and protection of the public. It sends a strong message to the membership that violation of physical boundaries will not be tolerated.

[top]

INAPPROPRIATE RELATIONSHIP WITH CLIENT /
ACCEPTING GIFTS FROM CLIENT

Karin Kopp, RN 96-1212-8 Campbellville

Allegations and Plea

The College alleged that the member committed acts of professional misconduct by failing to terminate the therapeutic nurseclient relationship when it became clear that a client was developing an emotional attachment to her, accepting gifts from the client and engaging in a personal relationship that resulted in the client changing the client’s will to make the member a beneficiary.

The member admitted to the allegations, and the College and the member submitted a written statement to the Panel in which they agreed to the following facts.

Agreed Statement of Facts

The member was employed as a facility supervisor at a nursing home. She provided care to a senior client with whom she developed a close relationship. The member gave the client her home telephone number, called the client while on vacation and provided photographs of herself, which the client displayed by the client’s bed. The member and her family members also visited the client.

The member accepted many gifts from the client, including an outfit, a magazine subscription, cash, a diamond ring and the client’s condominium. After the client died, the member learned that the client had changed the client’s will and had left her a grandfather clock and a television set. The client had also made the member the beneficiary of a registered retirement investment fund worth approximately $26,000.

The nursing home’s policy allowed nurses to accept gifts from clients under certain conditions. The member discussed the situation with the home’s administrator, who encouraged the relationship. According to the client’s lawyer, it was legal and appropriate for the member to accept the gifts because the client was mentally competent and had chosen to give them to her. A nursing expert for the College indicated that the member’s actions breached the professional standards. In the expert’s opinion, the nursing standards took precedence over the facility’s inadequate and inconsistent policy regarding gifts and any advice the member received from others.

Finding

The Panel found that the evidence supported a finding that the member committed acts of professional misconduct as alleged.

Submission on Penalty

The College and the member jointly sought an oral reprimand and a five-month suspension. They also sought requirements that the member complete a community college course in ethics/professional boundaries; meet with a Practice Consultant; provide any employers with a copy of the Panel’s decision for two years; and for this period only work for employers who agree to notify the College of any suspected breaches of practice and provide the College with performance appraisals every six months.

Penalty

The Panel imposed the proposed penalty as reasonable. The penalty provides for specific and general deterrence. It sends a message to the membership that such behaviour will not be tolerated. The requirement to complete an ethics course and meet with a Practice Consultant addresses the member’s rehabilitation and upholds the public interest by helping to ensure a safe return to practice. The Panel noted that the member cooperated with the College and, by agreeing to the facts and proposed penalty, accepted responsibility forher actions.

[top]

CLAIMING DISABILITY BENEFITS WHILE WORKING ELSEWHERE

Member

Allegations and Plea

The College alleged that the member committed acts of professional misconduct by collecting sick pay benefits for total disability from one facility while working at another facility.

The member admitted to the allegations, and the College and the member submitted a written statement to the Panel in which they agreed to the following facts.

Agreed Statement of Facts

The member worked as a nurse at a hospital and at a facility. After the member’s parent died at the hospital, the member went on total disability for being unable to practise the essential duties of her job. The member did not inform the employer that the inability to work was localized to the hospital. The member continued to work at the facility. The eight shifts that the member worked would not have conflicted with any scheduled shifts at the hospital. The member has been reimbursing the hospital monthly and to date has repaid $7,050 of the $8,150 in benefits collected from the hospital while on disability.

Finding

The Panel found that the evidence supported a finding that the member committed acts of professional misconduct as alleged. Submission on Penalty The College and the member jointly sought an oral reprimand. Penalty The Panel imposed the proposed penalty as reasonable and in the public interest. The penalty meets the requirements of specific and general deterrence and remediation.

[top]

MISAPPROPRIATION OF PROPERTY

Michelle Gooden, RN 98-0912-0

Allegations and Plea

The College alleged that the member committed an act of professional misconduct by misappropriating more than $6,000 from a client’s bank account.

The member denied the allegations, and the Panel proceeded with a hearing.

Evidence

The member provided nursing care to the client in the hospital. Shortly after discharge, the client discovered there was more than $6,000 missing from the client’s bank account. The Panel heard evidence that the member had accompanied the client home on discharge from the hospital, and that they had stopped to re-stripe the client’s bank card.

Over the next several days, a total of $6,000 was removed from the client’s account at bank machines located close to the hospital and the member’s home. The client and two nurses from the hospital identified the member as the person making a transaction from two different bank machines in photographs obtained at a branch near the member’s home. Bank machine records showed transactions on the client’s account. On the fourth day after the client’s discharge, items totalling $310.47 were purchased on the client’s bank card from stores near the hospital.

The member denied that she accompanied the client home from the hospital. While the member admitted that she was the person in the ATM photographs, she denied having possession of the client’s card or access to the client’s account. The member acknowledged that there was no activity on her own bank account on the two bank machines near her home even though she was videotaped using them on the relevant date. She explained that she had to use two machines as the first one was broken, and that no activity was shown on her account because she had only requested a bank balance.

Finding

The Panel found that the evidence supported a finding that the member committed professional misconduct as alleged.

Reasons

The Panel concluded that the member was in possession of the client’s bank card and had made the unauthorized transactions at the bank machines and stores.

The client confirmed that the member had accompanied the client home from the hospital and that they had stopped at the bank to re-stripe the client’s card. The member had been photographed as making transactions on the client’s bank account on the bank machines near her home. The member’s testimony that she had only requested a bank balance was contradicted by evidence that such activity would have registered on her account. Evidence indicated that the two machines were working and that the member had made withdrawals from the client’s account on both of them. Information also supported that the member had the time and opportunity to make other transactions at the other bank machines during her shifts at the hospital.

Submission on Penalty

Counsel for the College sought revocation of the member’s Certificate of Registration. The member asked permission to resign from the College.

Penalty

The Panel accepted the proposal to revoke the member’s Certificate of Registration.

Under the legislation, the Panel does not have the discretion to accept a member’s resignation after a finding of professional misconduct.

The Panel noted that the member took advantage of a vulnerable client and committed repeated acts of fraud and theft, depleting the client’s bank account. The member’s actions traumatized the client. The severe penalty serves to protect the public and provides for specific and general deterrence. It sends a strong message to the membership that such behaviour is unacceptable and will not be tolerated. The member’s behaviour is completely contrary to the values of public trust, honesty and integrity that form the cornerstones of the nursing profession.

[top]

COMMITTING AN ACT RELEVANT TO SUITABILITY TO PRACTISE

Robert Daniel, RN 97-2369-3 Waterloo

Allegations and Plea

The College alleged that the member committed an act of professional misconduct by his conviction for conspiracy to commit murder, an act relevant to his suitability to practise.

The member admitted to the allegation, and the College and the member submitted a written statement to the Panel in which they agreed to the following facts.

Agreed Statement of Facts

The member became estranged from his wife, but continued to see her regularly. He told their son that he wished the wife was dead. The member and the son arranged to fake a carjacking during which the wife would be killed and the member superficially injured to cover up his part in the plan. The member used his nursing knowledge to tell his son where to stab the wife to cause fatal injury. The carjacking did not occur as planned, and the member asked the son why he had not pulled the car over when he and his wife were in it. Hours later, the wife awoke in bed to find someone stabbing her. She sustained serious injuries, including nerve damage to her hand that required two operations. After the incident, the member continued to see his wife and cared for her injuries. He was subsequently arrested, convicted for conspiracy to commit murder and sentenced to four years imprisonment.

Finding

The Panel found that the facts supported a finding that the member committed professional misconduct as alleged.

Submission on Penalty

The College and the member jointly sought revocation of the member’s Certificate of Registration.

Penalty

The Panel accepted the joint submission as reasonable and in the public interest. It noted that the member cooperated with the College and, by agreeing to the facts and penalty, accepted responsibility for his actions. The penalty acts as a general deterrent, illustrating that such behaviour is inconsistent with professional values and will not be tolerated. It also provides for public protection by ensuring that the member will not be allowed to practise again unless he can demonstrate the values and standards of behaviour of the profession.

[top]

IMPROPER SUBSTITUTION OF MEDICATION /
MISAPPROPRIATION OF MEDICATION

Marilyn Dawn Fusz, RPN GH-0635-9 Manitouwadge Manitouwadge General Hospital

Allegations and Plea

The College alleged that the member committed acts of professional misconduct by substituting the diuretic Lasix for a client’s prescribed anti-anxiety agent Valium, and then misappropriating the Valium for her own use.

The member admitted to the allegations, and the College and the member submitted a written statement to the Panel in which they agreed to the following facts.

Agreed Statement of Facts

The member was a long-term employee of the hospital with no history of disciplinary action. An RN discovered that someone had replaced a client’s dose of Valium with Lasix. The RN subsequently determined that there were nine other Lasix pills in the client’s Valium tray. When the hospital investigated, the member immediately admitted that she had substituted Lasix pills for the client’s Valium and had then taken the Valium for her own use.

The member explained that the incident occurred at a time when she was under a great deal of stress.

Finding

The Panel found that the facts supported a finding that the member committed professional misconduct as alleged.

Submission on Penalty

The College and the member jointly sought an oral reprimand and a three-month suspension. They also sought the following requirements: for one year following her return to practice, the member only work for an employer who agrees to ensure that she is not involved in the administration of narcotics or controlled substances; for two years following her suspension, the member notify any employers of the Panel’s decision; during this period, the member only work for employers who agree to inform the College that they have received the decision and to advise the College if they have reasonable information regarding missing narcotics or controlled drugs.

Penalty

The Panel accepted the joint submission as reasonable and in the public interest. It noted that the member cooperated with the College and, by agreeing to the facts and penalty, accepted responsibility for her actions. The penalty addresses specific deterrence and rehabilitation for the member and sends a clear message to the membership that such behaviour will not be tolerated. The restriction on the administration of narcotics and controlled drugs serves to protect the public.

[top]

ADMINISTRATIVE MISTRIAL

Member

Issue

The Panel determined at a hearing that the member had committed professional misconduct and subsequently proceeded to consider the appropriate penalty. At that time, it was discovered that a Panel member had participated in other proceedings concerning the member.

Decision and Reasons

The Panel declared an administrative mistrial and directed that a new Panel be constituted to hear the allegations.

Discipline panels must conduct hearings in accordance with the principles of natural justice, which include the right to have a case judged by panel members who are free from bias, real or perceived. A Panel member’s prior knowledge of facts pertaining to a case could consciously or unconsciously influence that Panel member. While this was not a case of actual bias, the situation presented a reasonable apprehension of bias. The Panel maintained that the entire process must be above reproach.

[top]