Full text of decision on Dr. Deluco

NOTICE OF PUBLICATION BAN

In the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario and Dr. Anthony Theodore Deluco, this is notice that the Discipline Committee ordered that no person shall publish or broadcast the identity of the complainants or any information that could disclose the identity of the complainants under subsection 47(1) of the Health Professions Procedural Code (the Code), which is Schedule 2 to the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991.

The Committee also made an order to prohibit the publication regarding the identity or any information that would disclose the identity of the witness identified as "C" in the Notice of Hearing and any other patients whose identity is disclosed in testimony or exhibits regarding the alleged misconduct of a sexual nature under ss.45(3) of the Code.

Subsection 93 of the Code, which is concerned with failure to comply with these orders, reads:

93(1) Every person who contravenes an order made under section 45 or 47 is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to a fine of not more than $10,000 for a first offence and not more than $20,000 for a subsequent offence.

********************** THE DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE COLLEGE OF PHYSICIANS AND SURGEONS OF ONTARIO

IN THE MATTER OF a Hearing directed by the Complaints Committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario pursuant to Section 26(1) of the Health Professional Procedural Code, being Schedule 2 of the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991, S.O. 1991, c. 18, as amended.

B E T W E E N:

THE COLLEGE OF PHYSICIANS AND SURGEONS OF ONTARIO

- and –

DR. ANTHONY THEODORE DELUCO

PANEL MEMBERS:

DR. J. WATTS (CHAIR) J. DHAWAN DR. C.J. CLAPPERTON J. ASHMAN DR. M. GABEL

Hearing Dates: March 1-4, 2005, May 9-12, 2005

Decision/ Release Date: July 21, 2005

PUBLICATION BAN DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION

The Discipline Committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario heard this matter at Toronto on March 1, 2, 3, and 4, 2004.

The matter was then adjourned sine die and resumed on May 9, 10, 11 and 12, 2005.

At the conclusion of the hearing, the Committee reserved its decision.

PUBLICATION BAN

On March 1, 2004, the Committee ordered that no person shall publish the identity of the complainants or any information that could disclose the identity of the complainants under section 47(1) of the Health Professions Procedural Code (the "Code"), which is Schedule 2 to the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991, as amended (the "RHPA").

On March 1, 2004, the Committee ordered a further publication ban under section 45(3) of the Code regarding the identity or any information that would disclose the identity of the witness identified as "C" in the Notice of Hearing and any other patients whose identity is disclosed in testimony or exhibits regarding the alleged misconduct of a sexual nature. Reasons for this order were provided in writing.

ALLEGATIONS

The Notice of Hearing alleged that Dr. Deluco committed an act of professional misconduct:

1. under paragraphs 27.29 of O. Reg. 448 and 29.30 of O. Reg. 548, made under the Health Disciplines Act, and under clause 51(1)(b.1) of the Code, in that he engaged in sexual impropriety with, and sexually abused patients; and

2. under paragraphs 27.32 of O. Reg. 448 and 29.33 of O. Reg. 548, made under the Health Disciplines Act, and under clause 1(1)33 of O/Reg. 856/93, in that he engaged in acts relevant to the practice of medicine that having regard to all the circumstances, would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional.

RESPONSE TO THE ALLEGATIONS

Dr. Deluco denied the allegations set out in the Notice of Hearing.

EVIDENCE

(a) Overview of the Issues

The allegations of sexual abuse, sexual impropriety and disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional conduct in this case arise from alleged conduct by Dr. Deluco in relation to four patients patient B, patient A, patient E, and patient D.

At the time of final argument, College counsel provided to the Committee a summary of the findings that he was asking the Committee to make based on the evidence at the hearing.

The allegation of sexual impropriety, which deals with sexual misconduct allegations prior to December 31, 2003, was not pursued, and accordingly that allegation is dismissed.

Counsel for the College submitted that the allegations of sexual abuse was established in relation to patient B, patient A, and patient E and that the allegation of disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional conduct was established in relation to patient A, patient E, patient D, and patient B (unprofessional).

The Committee considered the following primary issues:

1. In relation to patient B:

(i) Did the alleged incidents of sexual intercourse in her home and in his medical office occur?

(ii) Did Dr. Deluco engage in acts of sexual abuse during sexual activity between this patient and her friend by touching, behaviour or remarks of a sexual nature towards the patient, or was he an unwilling observer of that activity?

(iii) Did the phone messages left by Dr. Deluco constitute sexual abuse and unprofessional conduct?

2. In relation to patient A:

(i) Did Dr. Deluco hug and kiss her in his office, as well as touch her buttocks in a context other than a medical examination, and did he give her a pornographic videotape?

(ii) Did Dr. Deluco’s behaviour constitute sexual abuse?

(iii) Did Dr. Deluco engage in conduct that was disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional?

3. In relation to patient E:

(i) Did Dr. Deluco make inappropriate comments concerning her breasts during an examination, cause her to penetrate her own vagina, and rub her thigh while asking her to promise not to get pregnant?

(ii) Did his verbal and physical behaviour in the office and emergency room constitute sexual abuse and was it disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional conduct?

4. In relation to patient D:

(i) Did his verbal and physical behaviour in the office constitute disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional conduct, especially in relationship to actions concerning her WSIB claims?

Continue reading this document