7

Discipline Hearing Summary In addition to finding that Ms. Perconti contravened the standards of the profession; the Panel found that she is incompetent within the meaning of the Health Professions Procedural Code in respect of the care that she provided to six clients. The Panel further stated that it “has grave concerns that the Member continues to fail to acknowledge any significant wrongdoing or responsibility with the issues surrounding the care she had provided, and is of the opinion she lacks the necessary judgment and self-reflection to recognize the deficits to her knowledge.” The Penalty The Panel noted that Ms. Perconti engaged in a “repeated pattern of poor decision-making, lack of good clinical judgment, and a deliberate willingness to ignore the rules that govern safe practice”. In addition, the Panel noted that Ms. Perconti lacked insight and showed no remorse for her actions. In all the circumstances, the Panel held that the most serious sanction of revocation of Ms. Perconti’s certificate of registration was necessary to protect the public and to ensure both specific and general deterrence. The Panel noted that Ms. Perconti “is able to reapply after a period of one year to the College for reinstatement.” However, “at that time the onus will be on Ms. Perconti to establish that she has corrected the significant deficits to her knowledge, skill, and judgment that have been identified.” The Costs In a separate decision dated January 28, 2015, the Panel ordered Ms. Perconti to pay costs to the College in the amount of $155,000. The Panel heard evidence that the College’s total hearing costs were over $1.4 million. The College sought payment of $900,000, which was 2/3 of the total hearing costs. The Panel determined that it was appropriate to award costs so that the profession of midwives would “not be liable for the full costs of members who are found guilty of professional misconduct and/or incompetence.” The Panel was also concerned with the evasiveness demonstrated by Ms. Perconti on the witness stand and her actions in attempting to shield her existing assets, including mortgaging her properties after she was revoked. However, the Panel did not award the full amount sought by the College. The Panel felt that $155,000 reflected an appropriate balance between the interests of the College in receiving substantial costs for such a lengthy hearing resulting in significant findings against Ms. Perconti and the interest of Ms. Perconti who has been revoked. Volume 8, Issue 3 | December 2015 Volume 9, Issue 1 April 2016 7