On May 22, 2020 the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (ICRC) referred a matter involving Satish Kumar Selvaraj to the Discipline Committee for a hearing.
The hearing took place on January 22, 2021. This matter was resolved by way of an Agreed Statement of Facts and a Joint Submission on Penalty.
Finding
The Discipline Committee issued a decision on the finding on January 22, 2021, on penalty on January 22, 2021 and on costs on January 22, 2021.
After having considered all of the evidence, a panel of the Discipline Committee found Satish Kumar Selvaraj to have committed the following acts of professional misconduct:
- paragraph 1 (failing to maintain the standards of practice of the profession);
- paragraph 18 (engaging in conduct or performing an act relevant to the practice of the profession that, having regard to all the circumstances, would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional);
- paragraph 26 (failing to keep records in accordance with the standards of practice of the profession);
- paragraph 27 (falsifying a record);
- paragraph 28 (signing or issuing a document containing a statement that the member knows or ought to know is false or misleading);
- paragraph 32 (submitting an account or charge for services that the member knows or ought to know is false or misleading);
- paragraph 33 (failing to take reasonable steps to ensure that any accounts submitted in the member’s name or billing number are fair and accurate); and
- paragraph 41 (failing to supervise in accordance with the standards of practice of the profession).
Penalty
The panel of the Discipline Committee ordered the following penalty. That Satish Kumar Selvaraj:
- Receive a reprimand at the conclusion of the hearing (delivered on January 22, 2021)
- Serve a suspension for the period of January 23, 2021 through to and including August 23, 2021. The suspension could be extended if they are unable to complete certain requirements.
- Complete a review of various College, standards, tools and resources.
- Meet with a practice coach on no more than eight occasions.
- May not supervise physiotherapy students, PTA students or registrants of the profession who hold a provisional practice certificate of registration during the coaching period.
- Successfully complete the ProBe program
- Practice as a PTA during their suspension only under the supervision of an approved, registered member of the College who is a physiotherapist at their practice location. If this is in a private practice setting, this location must be owned by a regulated health professional.
The Committee also ordered Satish Kumar Selvaraj to pay costs to the College in the amount of $3,000 to offset some of the costs associated with investigating and prosecuting this case.
As a part of the penalty the Committee also issued a reprimand which read as follows:
The panel has found that your behaviour constituted professional misconduct and wish to comment on two specific elements. Firstly, it was viewed by this panel that your behaviour reflects negatively on your profession. We strongly emphasize that your professional obligations demand that you maintain proper billing and recordkeeping practices.
Secondly, the College has a zero-tolerance policy on inappropriate billing practices. And, as a member of this profession, you are required to adhere to our College’s professional standards. The lack of oversight on the invoicing process and the inadequate recordkeeping could give the impression of falsified and/or fraudulent behaviour. The panel wishes to reinforce the importance of maintaining the standards.
Finally, although you were not the business owner related to these allegations, it is a serious concern for this panel that you did not appear to have a full understanding of the obligations for billing and recordkeeping practices. In light of the joint submission and cooperation on your part, it is hoped that you will take the learnings from this case and transfer them to your practice in all settings.
Should you appear before a disciplinary panel for similar behaviour in the future, this proceeding will weigh heavily on penalty consideration at that time.
You can read the full decision of the Discipline Committee of the College of Physiotherapists of Ontario at: www.canlii.ca