INSIDE: - Ontario College of Pharmacists

More documents

Recommendations

Info

DISCIPLINE not make a finding of professional misconduct, stating that it was “unable to conclude that one NSF cheque constitutes clear and cogent evidence of professional misconduct.” Submissions on Penalty The College proposed that the only appropriate penalty was revocation of Mr. Riad’s Certificate of Registration. Mr. Riad had failed to abide by prior rulings of the Discipline Committee, and had also been found guilty of obstructing justice in the criminal system. He was clearly unable to be governed either within the profession of pharmacy or outside of it. The College also put into evidence that fact that on August 28, 2003, Mr. Riad had been found guilty of defrauding the Ontario Drug Benefit Program of $192,185 in transactions separate from those for which the Discipline Committee had found him guilty of professional misconduct in April 2002. At the criminal trial, the sentencing judge had noted that Mr. Riad’s conduct was “a gross breach of the public trust with which his profession and his community clothed him.” The judge also noted that the offence involved “an extremely high level of moral blameworthiness,” and that a conditional sentence was not appropriate because Mr. Riad’s track record indicated that he was a “poor candidate to abide by conditions.” Reasons The Panel was mindful of the past finding of professional misconduct against Mr. Riad, as well as of his criminal convictions for several offences involving fraud and dishonesty. The Panel found that the evidence clearly demonstrated that Mr. Riad was unsuitable to practise the profession of pharmacy, of which honesty and integrity are hallmarks. The public is entitled to be protected from this type of dishonest conduct, and specifically from this Member’s repeatedly dishonest conduct and his overall inability to be governed. Decision The Panel decided that revocation of Mr. Riad’s Certificate of Registration was the appropriate penalty, and so ordered. C A S E 2 Submitted records that were false and misleading/Submitted accounts or charges for services that he knew were false or misleading/Fabricated false records Member: Roshdy Boshara, Toronto Hearing Dates: September 20, 2005, and October 12, 13, & 19, 2006 The hearing began as a contested hearing; after two days of testimony Mr. Boshara changed his plea, and the Panel accepted his plea of professional misconduct, based on the following Agreed Statement of Facts. The Facts Background The Complainant has been a patient of Dr. Robert Nevin at the Lockwood Clinic since 1998. The clinic was located in the same building as the Bay-Wellesley Pharmacy, and the Complainant filled prescriptions for various medications, from Dr. Nevin and other physicians at the clinic, at the Bay-Wellesley Pharmacy. Mr. Boshara purchased the Bay-Wellesley Pharmacy in February 2000. (He currently also has an ownership interest in another pharmacy in Etobicoke.) The Complainant qualified for participation in the Trillium Drug Program, which paid his drug expenses once he had paid a certain deductible amount each quarter-year. In February 2003, the Complainant asked Mr. Boshara to provide him with a printout of his patient profile for the year 2002, for tax purposes. The Complainant reviewed the Patient History Report with Mr. Boshara before he left the pharmacy on February 14, 2003. Initially, the Complainant had Mr. Boshara delete a number of $2.00 charges that appeared on the record in relation to drug transactions that were otherwise charged to the Trillium Drug Program. The Complainant reminded Mr. Boshara that he had not in fact been charged the $2.00 fees and Mr. Boshara agreed to amend the Patient History Report to reflect the Complainant’s actual expenses. A further review of the report revealed a number of transactions for drugs that the patient did not believe he had ever received from the pharmacy in 2002. The Drugs The Complainant recognized the four drugs in question as drugs that had been prescribed for him on prior occasions. However, he specifically 38 Pharmacy Connection January • February 2007
emembered that he had stopped using them for various reasons: they had unpleasant side effects, or they had stopped being effective, or he had replaced them with other medications or with physiotherapy. He knew that he had not requested or received the medications in the year 2002. The Complainant returned to the pharmacy on March 14, 2003 and questioned Mr. Boshara about the transactions in 2002 for these four medications. He was not satisfied with Mr. Boshara’s attempts to explain the transactions. The False Claims The Patient History Report for 2002, printed for the Complainant by Mr. Boshara on February 14, 2003, indicated that the four medications were billed to the Trillium Drug Program four or five times each between January 2002 and November 2002. The Complainant did not request or receive any of these medications on any of these occasions. The total amount billed to the Trillium Drug Program for these four medications in 2002 for the 19 transactions identified above was $431.16. The Complainant did not pay directly for any of these transactions, since they were all charged to the Trillium Drug Program. The transactions for the drugs in question in November 2002 were reversed and the Trillium Drug Program was credited for those transactions. The Complaint The Complainant complained in writing to the College about Mr. Boshara’s conduct in April 2003. The College notified Mr. Boshara about the complaint in May 2003, and asked him to provide the pharmacy records for transactions involving the Complainant in 2001 and 2002. Mr. Boshara provided those records and a response to the complaint through counsel in June 2003. Mr. Boshara provided prescriptions, hard-copy receipts, and patient history reports for the Complainant for the years 2001 and 2002. For the four drugs in question, Mr. Boshara provided a prescription for only one of the medications, and claimed that verbal authorizations had been obtained from the physicians for the others. The Complainant disputed Mr. Boshara’s response to the complaint and continued to claim that the four drugs in question had not been either requested or received by him in 2002. The Altered Records In preparing his response to the complaint in 2003, Mr. Boshara had altered some of the pharmacy records regarding the drug transactions that were called into question by the complaint. The Admissions Mr. Boshara acknowledges that he committed the acts of professional misconduct with respect to the 19 transactions involving the four medications that the Complainant had not requested or received, in that Mr. Boshara had: • failed to maintain the standards of practice of the profession, • falsified records relating to his practice with respect to the claims he submitted for the four drugs in question in 2002, and the pharmacy records he submitted with his response to the College in June 2003, • submitted accounts or charges for services that he knew were false or misleading, and, • conducted himself with respect to all of these matters in a manner that would reasonably be regarded by Members of the profession as disgraceful, dishonourable, or unprofessional. Reasons for Acceptance of the Joint Submission on Penalty The parties agreed to most elements of a penalty presented to the Panel by way of a Joint Submission on Penalty. The Panel did accept that Joint Submission. The College argued that, above and beyond the agreed penalty, the Panel should also impose terms, conditions, or limitations on Mr. Boshara’s Certificate of Registration such that for a period of three years he would not be allowed to own or operate a pharmacy or work at a pharmacy owned by a family member. (His wife, a registered pharmacist, owns a pharmacy.) The Mr. Boshara argued that rather than ordering such terms, conditions, or limitations, the Panel should allow him to retain ownership of his pharmacy, but order him to pay for random audits of his prescription records for a period of three years. The Panel was deeply troubled by Mr. Boshara’s efforts to falsify records, from the time of the original Pharmacy Connection January • February 2007 39
Page 1 and 2: January/February 2007 INSIDE: • D
Page 3 and 4: Ontario College of Pharmacists 483
Page 5 and 6: E D I T O R ’ S M E S S A G E Del
Page 7 and 8: ing soundness, and order of magnitu
Page 9 and 10: Tepper, Assistant Deputy Minister,
Page 11 and 12: Members around the province could p
Page 13 and 14: Proposed Regulation of Pharmacy Tec
Page 15 and 16: Proposed Regulation of Pharmacy Tec
Page 17 and 18: PRACTICE Library Requirements Q A&
Page 19 and 20: What’s New for This Year’s Rene
Page 21 and 22: Letter to the Editor I am writing t
Page 23 and 24: well-established systems to documen
Page 25 and 26: REGISTRATION Q A& Chris Schillemore
Page 27 and 28: DATE 02 Nov 2006 27 Oct 2006 25 Oct
Page 29 and 30: She received her CDE certification
Page 31 and 32: C L O S E - U P O N C O M P L A I N
Page 33 and 34: C L O S E - U P O N C O M P L A I N
Page 35 and 36: INSPECTORS’ CORNER the pharmacy f
Page 37: DECIDING ON DISCIPLINE C A S E 1 Pr
Page 41 and 42: Thank You, Preceptors Roxanne Hook,
Page 43 and 44: DEEP RIVER Christine Harding Hardin
Page 45 and 46: Mohamed Walji River Run Pharmasave
Page 47 and 48: Richard Nemett Shoppers Drug Mart H
Page 49 and 50: C E E V E N T S Visit the College
Page 51 and 52: O C P M A N U A L - February 2007 E

INSIDE: - Ontario College of Pharmacists

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?