On This Page

Mulvina Adina Dyer, 9327107

The Member admitted that she engaged in professional misconduct by failing to take appropriate steps to identify and promptly address the abnormal fetal heart rate of the fetus of a patient in labour. The Member also restarted and increased the infusion rate of oxytocin for the patient, without a valid physician’s order. In addition, the Member failed to adequately document her rationale for restarting and increasing an infusion of oxytocin for the patient.

Based on the Member’s admissions, the Panel found the Member:

  • contravened a standard of practice of the profession or failed to meet the standards of practice of the profession; and
  • engaged in conduct relevant to the practice of nursing, that, having regard to all the circumstances, would reasonably be regarded by members as dishonourable and unprofessional.

The College of Nurses of Ontario (“CNO”) and the Member presented the Panel with a Joint Submission requesting that the Panel make an order that included the following:

  • an oral reprimand;
  • a 7-month suspension;
  • terms, conditions and limitations, including:
    • attending a minimum of 2 meetings with a Regulatory Expert;
    • successfully completing a course in obstetrics; and
    • employer notification for 24 months.

Aggravating factors considered by the Panel included:

  • the seriousness of the conduct;
  • there were deficits in the Member’s clinical judgement which resulted in serious professional misconduct by failing to obtain a physician order; and
  • the patient was in a very vulnerable position, experiencing labour and delivery which required the utmost of care and attention.

Mitigating factors considered by the Panel included:

  • the Member accepted responsibility for her actions and co-operated with CNO;
  • the Member came to a mutual agreement on the facts, avoiding the need for a contested hearing and for the patient or others to testify;
  • there was no suggestion of intentional, dishonest conduct;
  • the Member submitted that she had an “unblemished” career without complaints; and
  • the Member has no past disciplinary hearings.

The Panel accepted the Joint Submission, concluding that the proposed penalty was reasonable and in the public interest. 


Page last reviewed June 18, 2020