Indexed as: Frith (Re) 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(2) 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. RUSSELL HAROLD FRITH PANEL MEMBERS: P. BEECHAM (CHAIR) DR. P. NOBLE DR. P. KLOTZ J. FREDERICK Hearing Date: June 28, 2002 Decision/Released Date: June 28, 2002
2 DECISION AND REASON FOR DECISIONS The Discipline Committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario heard this matter at Toronto on June 28, 2002. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Committee made and delivered its finding that the member was guilty of professional misconduct in that he engaged in the sexual abuse of a patient and imposed a penalty that included the immediate revocation of Dr. Frith s certificate of registration. The Committee further indicated that Reasons for Decision would be delivered subsequently in writing. PUBLICATION BAN The Committee ordered that the name of the patient or any information which could disclose the identity of the patient not be published or broadcast under ss.47(1) of the Health Professions Procedural Code (the Code) which is Schedule 2 to the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991. ALLEGATIONS The Notice of Hearing contained the following allegations of professional misconduct: (1) It was alleged that Dr. Frith committed an act of professional misconduct contrary to clause 51(1)(b.1) of the Health Professions Procedural Code (the Code ) which is schedule 2 to the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991, S.O. 1991, c.18 in that he engaged in the sexual abuse of a patient; (2) It was further alleged that Dr. Frith committed an act of professional misconduct contrary to paragraph 1(1)(33) of Ontario Regulation 856/93 of the Medicine Act for an act or omission relevant to the practice of medicine that, having regard to all the circumstances, would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional. It was also alleged that Dr. Frith is incompetent as defined by subsection 52(1) of the Code, in that his care of patients displayed a lack of knowledge, skill or judgment or
3 disregard for the welfare of the patients of a nature or to an extent that demonstrates that he is unfit to continue practise or that his practise should be restricted. PLEA Dr. Frith entered a plea of no contest to the allegation set out in the Notice of Hearing in that he engaged in the sexual abuse of a patient. Under the Rules of the Discipline Committee, when a physician enters a plea of no contest to an allegation, the member consents to the following: that the Discipline Committee can accept as correct the facts alleged against the member on that allegation for the purposes of the proceeding only; that the Discipline Committee can accept that those facts constitute professional misconduct or incompetence or both for the purposes of the proceeding only; and that the Discipline Committee can dispose of the issue of what finding ought to be made without hearing evidence. The College withdrew allegation #2 and the allegation of incompetence. EVIDENCE An Agreed Statement of Facts was filed as an exhibit and presented to the Committee, which established the following facts that were accepted by the Committee: 1. Dr. Frith is a physician with a certificate to practise in Ontario. He was born in 1950 and received his L.M.C.C. in 1976. Dr. Frith is a G.P. with a practice that involves predominantly cognitive psychotherapy and also transpersonal psychotherapy. Dr. Frith practices at a clinic in the City of Toronto. 2. The complainant was 37 years of age when she was referred to Dr. Frith in April of 2000 for social anxiety, a panic disorder and depression. She attended for regular weekly appointments which increased to biweekly appointments in March of 2001 until she discontinued her doctor-patient relationship with Dr. Frith in May of 2001.
4 3. A relationship developed between Dr. Frith and the complainant in approximately March 2001. Neither person had been in a relationship for some time. At the time, Dr. Frith considered the relationship to be a consensual one. 4. After the relationship developed, Dr. Frith hugged the complainant. At times, the complainant initiated the hugging by asking Dr. Frith to give her a hug. There were general discussions about sexuality, including masturbation. Dr. Frith and the complainant exchanged e-mail addresses. In March of 2001, Dr. Frith began sending the complainant sexually explicit e-mails. She also sent such e-mails to Dr. Frith. E-mails of a spiritually oriented and romantic nature were also sent by Dr. Frith to the complainant. 5. Following an appointment in April 2001, Dr. Frith placed his hands down the complainant s pants and touched her genital area to which she was receptive. On a later occasion, he engaged in cunnilingus and sexual intercourse with her at his office. Dr. Frith and the complainant had sexual intercourse on other occasions at his office. 6. Dr. Frith also engaged in sexual intercourse and other sexual acts with the complainant at his home after consuming wine. The complainant had brought the wine with her on her own initiative. There was another occasion when the complainant and Dr. Frith met at his home and had sexual intercourse. 7. Dr. Frith provided the complainant with a photo of himself when he was a young boy of 3 years of age. The complainant requested the photo when it was offered by Dr. Frith. It is Dr. Frith s view that the photo was provided because he was in love with the complainant and he believed the complainant was in love with him. 8. Dr. Frith e-mailed the complainant pornographic e-mails with graphic depictions of anal, vaginal and oral sex. The complainant e-mailed Dr. Frith material of a sexual nature as well. 9. In May of 2001, the complainant ended the doctor-patient relationship.
5 FINDINGS Having regard to the agreed facts, and the plea of no contest, the Committee found Dr. Frith guilty of professional misconduct under clause 51(1)(b.1) of the Health Professions Procedural Code (the Code ) which is schedule 2 to the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991, S.O. 1991, c.18 in that he engaged in the sexual abuse of a patient. PENALTY AND REASONS FOR PENALTY Counsel for the College submitted a witness impact statement from the complainant to the Committee which described with obvious pain the serious impact on her of the sexual abuse. We considered it important to quote some of the words of this patient to show the serious impact that sexual abuse can have on patients. The first question that goes over and over and over in my mind is How could I have allowed this to happen? Only in the past couple of months I m beginning to shift the blame to where it really belongs. It belongs to Dr. Frith. The professional psychiatrist who was to assist me in, finally, after all my adult life, to feel better about myself and help me with this horrible depression I have yet to conquer. Instead, he manipulated and used me like a whore, and he got paid for it, now I will pay for it for the rest of my life with gross flashbacks and the very real uncertainty if I will ever feel trust, or for that matter, feel for anyone in a caring, normal way. I hate this so much that I can t take it sometimes. My mind goes in circles; my moods are so erratic, I feel sick most times and all I want to be is me, a person who I have yet to know, because people along the way through life have robbed me of myself. He knew every aspect of my life. He knows of the abuse I encountered in my teens, the horrible men in my mom s life. He knew how hopeless I felt, he knew I hated my looks, my confused mind. He knew everything about me. I confided my most personal self to him. I guess it didn t take too much thinking on his part to realize, Wow, I may have an opportunity here.
6 I desperately wanted help, as the past 6 years I have tried numerous things to get me out of this blackness. I prefer not to go on anymore with the details of this horror story, but as this impact statement is supposed to allow me to do, express to you how it is affecting me. I feel dead inside. I m 39 and think I will never be a normal sexual being. My depression has manifested to the point now, where I don t want to go out and I feel uglier more now than I ever have. I can t drive where he lives. I keep seeing his scary face in my mind. There are days when I feel certain that it s not worth it, this struggle. I do now blame him for ruining my mind to where it is today. How can he still be practising medicine with a conscience, whereas I, have battered myself over a year. Yes, I allowed this pervert to use me. He was not someone I met at a bar, he was a sleazy doctor, who used his power to manipulate me into doing something I will regret for the rest of my life. I feel dirty and stupid. I m back to where I started, but the female psychiatrist I m seeing now is trying her best with me. I m so bitter, sad and yes, I feel hopeless. It s a slow process to trust my new doctor, but I know she doesn t want to have sex with me, which in itself, is a great weight off me. Please understand, I have blamed myself for this, but through my new doctor and the college, I ve come to understand not to blame myself. This ordeal has tarnished my respect for those that do deserve it. It is my hope and prayer that what happened to me will never happen to anyone else and I thank the College for their support through this ordeal. Under section 51(1)(b.1) the penalty for sexual abuse of the nature found in this case is mandatory revocation. Having regard for the egregious nature of the sexual abuse that Dr. Frith has been found guilty of, the Committee is of the view that revocation of Dr. Frith s certificate of registration is the appropriate penalty, even if it had not been mandatory under the Act. Only this penalty will protect the public sufficiently. The committee found that Dr. Frith had abused the power found in the fiduciary relationship
7 between a doctor and patient and had acted without regard for the welfare of his patient. He committed a fundamental breach of trust of a very vulnerable patient. COSTS The committee considered the submissions of both counsel regarding costs. It was acknowledged that Dr. Frith has been reasonable and co-operative throughout the investigation and prosecution. He admitted from the outset that he had had a sexual relationship with the patient and accepted full responsibility for it. This expedited the process, shortened considerably the length of the hearing and saved the complainant the need to testify. Nevertheless, the Committee decided that this was an appropriate case to order costs in that there was serious misconduct of an egregious nature. The Committee considered that the amount of costs requested ($2500) does not cover the full costs incurred in investigating and prosecuting this matter. By his serious misconduct, Dr. Frith has cost the profession and it was the view of the Committee that he should pay at least part of the costs. ORDER The Discipline Committee therefore ordered and directed that: 1. Dr. Frith appear before the Committee to be reprimanded and that the reprimand be recorded on the register. 2. The Registrar is to revoke Dr. Frith s certificate of registration effective immediately. 3. Dr. Frith is to reimburse the College for funding provided for the patient under the program required under section 85.7 of the Code.
8 4. Dr. Frith is to post security by way of an irrevocable letter of credit in the amount of $10,000.00 to guarantee the payment of any amounts Dr. Frith may be required to reimburse the College under the order made in paragraph 3; and 5. Costs in the amount of $2500.00 shall be paid by Dr. Frith to the College within 60 days of June 28, 2002.