Search Close Mobile Nav
PT Portal Find a Physiotherapist / Public Register
Search
Close Search

Ernest Rajaratnam

Discipline Case Summary

The following is a summary of a matter placed before a five-member panel of the Discipline Committee of the College of Physiotherapists of Ontario on May 17, 2001 by way of a motion by both the College and Mr. Rajaratnam for an adjournment on terms.

Allegations

Following an investigation into the practice of Mr. Ernest Rajaratnam, the College alleged the following:

  1. Ernest D. Rajaratnam was a duly registered physiotherapist working at various locations in Ontario.

  2. On or about August 22 and 23, 1998, Mr. Rajaratnam worked at York Central Hospital. He smelled of alcohol, spoke incoherently, had bloodshot eyes and appeared to be impaired. He recorded in the chart that he had assisted a patient to get out of bed when he had not.

  3. On or about May 5, 1997, Mr. Rajaratnam was the subject of a complaint by a representative of an insurance company. The allegations against Mr. Rajaratnam included the following:

    1. Billing for treatment while no registered therapist was on site;

    2. Billing $75.00 for brief treatments; and

    3. Inadequate record keeping practices.

  4. On December 3, 1998, Mr. Rajaratnam signed a formal Acknowledgment and Undertaking with the College. The Acknowledgment and Undertaking included the following commitments by Mr. Rajaratnam:

    1. To ensure that there is evidence in his clinical record of a full assessment of all clients, and that a clinical judgment process is utilized in the development of a treatment plan, planned reassessments and effective discharge planning;

    2. To fully cooperate over a two-year period with a mentor chosen by the College, including having the mentor observe Mr. Rajaratnam conduct and record at least one initial assessment of a new patient on each of six meetings with the mentor;

    3. To comply with all of the College's guidelines, draft regulations and standards of practice; and

    4. Not to work in a setting where Mr. Rajaratnam is the only physiotherapist.

  5. Mr. Rajaratnam's subsequent assessments and treatments and clinical records did not comply with the Acknowledgment and Undertaking or with the College's guidelines, draft regulations and standards of practice or with the standards of practice of the profession. Mr. Rajaratnam continued to work in a setting where he was the only physiotherapist.

  6. Mr. Rajaratnam did not fully cooperate with the mentor. For example, Mr. Rajaratnam did not have a new patient available for assessment before the mentor and did not follow the recommendations and advice of the mentor. On or about January 19, 2000, Mr. Rajaratnam presented a patient to the mentor as a new patient when, in fact, the patient was not new. When the mentor first suspected that he was being misled about the patient, Mr. Rajaratnam initially tried to conceal the deception.

  7. Mr. Rajaratnam was ungovernable.

  8. Mr. Rajaratnam was incompetent as defined in section 52 of the Health Professions Procedural Code

  9. The member's conduct alleged above constituted professional misconduct as defined in paragraphs 2 (standards of practice), 6 (practising while impaired), 25 (unprofessional conduct), 26 (breaching an undertaking), and 28 (refusing to cooperate) of Ontario Regulation 861/93 as amended.

Mr. Rajaratnam placed the following submission on terms before the panel of the Discipline Committee:

  1. I hereby resign my membership with the College, effective July 31, 2001.

  2. I undertake never to reapply to be registered or to practice as a physiotherapist again in Ontario or elsewhere.

  3. Between now and July 31, 2001, I will comply with the requirements of my undertaking dated December 3, 1998, for the period up to July 31, 2001, including to practice only with another registered physiotherapist on site.

  4. I understand that the College may monitor my compliance.

  5. If I comply with the terms of my resignation as set out I understand that the College will not re-institute the hearing.

Mr. Rajaratnam further undertook to notify the College within 24 business hours of any employment he planned to participate in prior to July 31, 2001.

The panel accepted the submission. The panel ordered that the hearing be adjourned and that if Mr. Rajaratnam complied with the conditions as set out above, the College may withdraw the pending allegations without penalty or cost to Mr. Rajaratnam on August 1, 2001. The allegations have since been withdrawn and, thus, have never been formally proved.

↑