Amit Bidaye

CPO and Amit Bidaye

Case Number: 2004-0001

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 November 4, 2004. 

In this matter, the panel considered and accepted an Agreed Statement of Facts filed by the College and the registrant, and found Mr. Bidaye guilty of professional misconduct. 

The Allegations

The registrant was found guilty of professional misconduct as defined in paragraphs 2 (standards of practice), 18 (submitting a misleading account), 25 (unprofessional conduct), and 29 (failing to supervise) of the College’s Professional Misconduct Regulation. 
 

Agreed Upon Facts 

During 2002 and 2003, Mr. Bidaye was clinical/medical director at three clinics (in Brampton, Etobicoke and Scarborough) known as Acur Rehabilitation. At times Mr. Bidaye may have had an ownership interest in some or all of the clinics 

Unregistered persons under Mr. Bidaye’s supervision were not appropriately supervised at the clinics. These persons performed assessments, reassessments, mobilizations, changes to treatment plans, and entered clinical documentation for these services – all activities that physiotherapists are not permitted to assign. 

As a consequence, Mr. Bidaye, 

1. Failed to provide adequate and appropriate assessments, treatment plans, treatment, reassessments, discharge planning and documentation for patients under his care, thereby placing his patients at a potential risk of harm. 
2. Permitted unregistered persons to hold themselves out as physiotherapists both in written documents and verbally, thereby placing his patients at a potential risk of harm. 
3. Permitted clients and third party payers not to be billed in keeping with generally accepted billing principles. For example, they were billed variable and inconsistent amounts and were given inaccurate information about the fees. 
4. Permitted billing documents and receipts to be prepared and issued for physiotherapy services when the services were not performed by a registered physiotherapist or under the appropriate supervision of a physiotherapist. Mr. Bidaye also pre-signed blank treatment plan forms.

Mr. Bidaye’s actions were inconsistent with professional standards and billing requirements. During the course of the investigation of this case, Mr. Bidaye gave inconsistent and false information to the College, including: 

1. Whether he trained unregistered persons in manual therapy skills; 
2. Whether he monitored the billing at the clinics; 
3. His compensation arrangements at the Etobicoke clinic; 
4. The degree of his involvement in the supervision and record keeping of patients seen by unregistered persons; and 
5. Initially advising the College that one unregistered person was a physiotherapist.

Order on Penalty and Costs

The Discipline panel accepted a joint submission on order. The panel ordered that: 

1. Mr. Bidaye’s certificate of registration be suspended for a period of four months commencing December 04, 2004, in order to allow Mr. Bidaye’s current employer adequate time to secure a replacement. 
2. For two years following the end of the suspension, it be a term, condition and limitation on Mr. Bidaye’s certificate of registration that he fully cooperate in up to four unannounced onsite inspections of his practice premises, records, practice methods, staffing and billing at his own expense (fixed at $300 per inspection). 
3. Mr. Bidaye be reprimanded by the panel and that the fact of the reprimand be recorded in the public register. 
4. Mr. Bidaye pay $10,000 towards the costs and expenses of investigating and prosecuting this matter.

The Panel’s Reasons

In assessing the appropriate penalty order, the Discipline panel considered the nature of the misconduct. A key issue was the failure to supervise. The registrant failed to provide adequate assessments; submitted misleading billings; and misled the College investigators early on in the investigation. 

There were, however, no allegations of breach of trust or fraud and the findings were of “middle-of-the-road” seriousness in relation to similar cases. 

The panel considered the following as aggravating factors: the offences occurred over a significant period of time (two years), and at several (three) locations. The conduct consisted of fundamental failures to follow College guidelines, and thus uphold the integrity of the profession. 

Balancing these, the panel considered the following mitigating factors. The registrant terminated his relationship with the clinic owners. Mr. Bidaye has since worked for several months at a very reputable hospital and in a well respected private physiotherapy clinic. 

Mr. Bidaye has taken action to put his transgressions in the past, is penitent for his misconduct, and has stated his commitment in the future to doing his job in a good and reputable manner. 

College counsel indicated that the College felt this order was a solid, fair and representative discipline order. The terms of the penalty are within the range of similar cases, and satisfy the College’s responsibility to protect the public. The penalty, when presented to the membership through the College newsletter, “Communiqué,” and on the College web site, will serve to apprise the membership of the College’s obligation to protect the public and the responsibility of registrants to comply with College guidelines and expectations. 

Mr. Bidaye’s counsel acknowledged the fairness and balance of the proposed penalty. Speaking on behalf of Mr. Bidaye, he conceded that the alleged actions did occur but Mr. Bidaye was remorseful and had disassociated himself from the clinic operation in which the offences occurred. 

Mr. Bidaye had been going through a stressful time in his life, sincerely wishes the conduct had not happened, and pledges that it will not happen again. 

The panel believes that this penalty protects the public and serves the objectives of general and specific deterrence, which are paramount objectives in this case.