Winnipeg doctor suspended for misconduct deemed ‘damaging to the reputation of the profession’

Posted on October 15, 2024 by Peggy

A Winnipeg doctor has been suspended for six months and fined $5,000 after pleading guilty to a pattern of professional misconduct over several years that included submitting claims for services he never provided and fabricating a document to mislead investigators after a patient complained about him.

Dr. Daljit Singh Gill appeared before a panel of the College of Physicians & Surgeons of Manitoba’s inquiry committee Tuesday morning on multiple counts of professional misconduct for incidents beginning as early as 2017.

The allegations against Gill began after a patient complained the doctor had failed to make a necessary referral for an implantable defibrillator or respond to their inquiries about it in the fall of 2017, the panel heard.

Gill responded to that complaint in the spring of 2018, a delay the panel heard came without adequate explanation. Concerns were then raised about the reliability of his response, which claimed Gill had in fact sent the referral in October 2017 and couldn’t explain why it hadn’t been received.

An investigation determined Gill failed to complete the referral, and the doctor later admitted to providing misleading information to investigators, including fabricating the referral letter he gave them.

Jeremy de Jong, a lawyer for the College of Physicians & Surgeons of Manitoba’s complaints investigation committee, called Gill’s misconduct “an affront to the integrity” of the college’s regulatory process.

The lawyer said the offences Gill has admitted to are “contrary to ethical expectations, particularly that physicians will be accountable for their mistakes. And it’s very damaging to the reputation of the profession.”

Doctor with stethoscope. — Jeremy de Jong, a lawyer for the College of Physicians & Surgeons of Manitoba’s complaints investigation committee, called Gill’s misconduct ‘an affront to the integrity’ of the college’s regulatory process. (Kamon Wongnon/Shutterstock)

The panel also heard that while the college was investigating the original complaint against Gill, it got additional information suggesting further concerns in the doctor’s practice — which led to audits in June 2020.

Those audits found “widespread issues” with Gill’s documentation of patient visits, and suggested Gill was not reviewing diagnostics soon enough and that he’d “inappropriately submitted claims for services not provided, including family care conferences,” and were followed by Gill entering an undertaking that saw him supervised in his practice.

The suspension and fine handed down Tuesday were the result of a joint recommendation between de Jong and Gill’s lawyer, Nicole Watson, who said that while the issues identified in Gill’s practice were “profound,” there is some indication the supervision the doctor has already been under has helped improve his practice.

“While we have not reached an end point, what I’m suggesting to you is that the arc that we are on indicates a true arc of growth and improvement, and that the adjustments that have been made help keep us on that course-corrected path,” Watson said.

‘Platitudes and subterfuge’

The investigation into Gill’s practices, which spanned several clinics and a personal care home, also found he had at times frequently given “unnecessarily short prescription refills,” which led to delays, confusion and at times gaps in care, the panel heard.

He would also fail to respond to pharmacy refills in a timely manner and unnecessarily send approvals “in a piecemeal fashion,” de Jong said.

“For example, if the pharmacy sent two pages of requests for prescription refills, he’d take them apart and send them on separate days. But occasionally, he might forget to send the second page,” de Jong said. “Every time you send a page back to the pharmacy on a particular day, you get a fee — that’s the intent here.”

In one incident in 2021, Gill informed a patient of what he said was a potential breach of her personal health information by a pharmacist at a certain clinic, which led the patient to file a complaint with the college. The hearing was told Gill assisted the patient in filing the complaint about the alleged breach.

While Gill said he had an ethical obligation to inform the patient and denied weaponizing the complaints process, de Jong said the communications between Gill and the patient “went far beyond” updating her about a potential privacy breach “despite being advised against involving patients in his dispute” with the clinic.

“There were several allegations against the character of the pharmacist owner … and how that business was run, which wouldn’t have been relevant to this particular patient,” de Jong said. “So it looked very much like an abuse of process.”

While Gill has pleaded guilty to the offences, de Jong said it’s been “a very long journey to get here in terms of insight and accountability,” adding that a review of Gill’s correspondence relating to the concerns against him reveals repeated instances of “platitudes and subterfuge, including unfulfilled commitments to professional growth and ethical practices” that led to the need for disciplinary action.

The panel accepted the joint recommendation, which will also require Gill to complete a professionalism and ethics course and pay costs to the college and restitution to Manitoba Health for the unsupported claims he billed them for — an amount that hasn’t been determined yet.

Once his suspension ends, Gill will also have a number of conditions on his practice, including supervision.