Sask. doctor reprimanded and ordered to pay $24K in costs after lying on registration forms in Ontario, Manitoba

A Regina doctor has been reprimanded and ordered to pay more than $24,000 in costs by the council of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Saskatchewan (CPSS) after being found to have provided inaccurate information while applying for licensure in two other provinces. In October 2017, Dr. Fawzy Girgis, who had been practicing in Saskatchewan since 2014 and previously had practiced in Manitoba, applied for licensure in Ontario as his son was planning to attend university there. On the application form from the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO), Dr. Girgis said “no” when asked if he had every been the subject of any complaint made to any medical licensing authority, regardless of outcome.However, the CPSO denied Dr. Girgis’ application after it was made aware that he was the subject of one complaint and three investigations from the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Manitoba (CPSM).When he applied in October 2018 to renew his CPSM license, he answered “no” to a question that asked whether he had ever been denied licensure, despite having been denied by the CPSO a year prior. He answered “no” again on his renewal form in October 2019.During cross-examination, Dr. Girgis testified in his defence that he misunderstood the question on his 2017 CPSO application and thought that he didn’t need to disclose the previous CPSM complaints and investigations if they ended with self-learning, and was adamant that he wasn’t trying to hide anything. He also testified that he believed the CPSM complaints were “not major” so there was no need to mention it, and that he did not read every word of the application because he completed it quickly.“While Dr. Girgis’ belief that an appeal stayed the decision of the CPSO was incorrect it was not dishonest. Likewise with respect to his mistaken beliefs regarding prior complaints/investigations. While demonstrating lack of due diligence, these do not prove dishonesty. He made mistakes and learned from them,” Dr. Girgis’ legal counsel argued. These beliefs, according to Dr. Girgis, were based off his conversations with unnamed colleagues. However, the CPSS discipline hearing committee said the questions on the application form were “clear and unambiguous.” The questions on the CPSO form in 2017 were written as follows, with the key parts of the question underlined and bolded as such:“(i) Regardless of the outcome, have you ever been the subject of any complaint made a medical licensing authority? Be sure to disclose all complaints. Complaints that were dismissed, or closed with no further action, or otherwise resolved in any manner, must still be disclosed. (iii) Have you ever been the subject of any type of investigation, inquiry or proceeding by a medical licensing authority relating to your professional conduct, competence, capacity, or any other aspect of your medical practice? Be sure to disclose all medical licensing authority investigations, inquiries or proceedings, including any audits or assessments of your practice.”When asked about why he answered “no” in 2018 and 2019 to the CPSM over whether he had ever been denied registration, Dr. Girgis testified that he didn’t think he had to disclose the fact that he was denied registration in Ontario because he planned to appeal the CPSO’s decision and thought that the decision wasn’t “final.” Once again, Dr. Girgis said these beliefs came from his conversations with unnamed colleagues.The hearing committee wasn’t buying this explanation, and noted that the question on the CPSM application, “HAVE YOU EVER BEEN DENIED AN APPLICATION FOR LICENSURE, REGISTRATION PERMIT OR ANY OTHER AUTHORIZATION TO PRACTISE?” was written in all capitals. There was also a warning at the top of the page written in bolded capital letters that “ANY FALSE OR FRAUDULENT REPRESENTATION” would result in the cancellation of registration.“In summary, despite clear, unambiguous, bolded, capitalized questions and warnings against false representations in three separate applications on three separate occasions . . . Dr. Girgis persisted in his belief that questions concerning any complaints/investigations ever referred only to current ones or those that did not result in suspension or discipline,” the committee said, adding that Dr. Girgis’ explanations “stretch credulity.”“While carelessness, haste and unreliable information was at play, as admitted, Dr. Girgis’ conduct goes beyond that . . .. In short, we conclude that Dr. Girgis failed in his obligation to be candid, forthcoming and honest in his applications to both regulatory bodies and find him guilty of all three charges.”

Sask. doctor reprimanded and ordered to pay $24K in costs after lying on registration forms in Ontario, Manitoba

Register for free access or login.

Related Topics

Business Topic