Glumac, George (CPSO#: 32285)

Current Status: Revoked: Discipline Committee as of 21 Mar 2016

CPSO Registration Class: None as of 21 Mar 2016

Indicates a concern or additional information

Summary

Former Name: No Former Name

Gender: Male

Languages Spoken: English

Education:Queen's University, 1977

Practice Information

Primary Location of Practice
Practice Address Not Available
View Professional Corporation Information

Professional Corporation Information

Corporation Name: Dr. George Glumac, Medicine Professional Corporation

Certificate of Authorization Status: Inactive: Nov 16 2016

Medical Records Location

Instructions: Patients looking to obtain a copy of their medical records may contact the College's Advisory Service at 416-967-2600, or 1-800-268-7096, extension 603.
Date Received: 04 Nov 2016

Specialties

Specialty Issued On Type
Psychiatry Effective: 07 Jun 1982 RCPSC Specialist

Registration History

Action Issue Date
First certificate of registration issued: Postgraduate Education Certificate Effective: 13 Jun 1977
Transfer of class of registration to: Independent Practice Certificate Effective: 15 Apr 1981
Transfer of class of certificate to: Restricted certificate Effective: 06 Mar 2015
Revoked: Discipline Committee. Effective: 21 Mar 2016

Previous Discipline Hearings

Committee: Discipline
Decision Date: 21 Mar 2016
Summary:

On March 21, 2016, the Discipline Committee found that Dr. Glumac committed an act of 
professional misconduct in that he engaged in the sexual abuse of a patient; failed to maintain 
the standard of the profession; and engaged in conduct or 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. The Discipline Committee also 
found that Dr. Glumac is incompetent. 

Dr. George Glumac is a psychiatrist.  

Around 2008, Patient A sought a psychiatrist to assist with the care and treatment of one of her 
children with special needs. Patient A, who has had frequent surgeries, chronic pain, and limited 
mobility, also has a history of childhood sexual abuse. Patient A’s husband, Patient B, has a 
developmental disorder. Patient A and her family have faced significant financial challenges, 
receive financial assistance, and have no additional income. 

Dr. Glumac agreed to see the family for therapy for issues arising with one of Patient A’s 
children.  

In early 2009, Patient A asked to see Dr. Glumac alone. At their first private appointment in 
January 2009, Dr. Glumac suggested that Patient A would benefit from seeing someone, and he 
suggested she see him regularly as a “place to vent.” He told her he would see her as a friend. 
Patient A agreed and began to see Dr. Glumac regularly without her children. Occasionally, 
Patient B, her husband, would join her in these sessions for joint counseling. 

Around May 2009, Dr. Glumac began managing Patient A’s chronic pain and prescribed an anti-
depressant; a narcotic; an amphetamine; a buproprion; a narcotic; benzodiazepine; an SSNRI; 
an SSRI; and a synthetic cannabinoid. 

 

Boundary Violations in the Psychotherapeutic Relationship 

Dr. Glumac made personal disclosures to Patient A including that he was a practising 
fundamentalist Christian, details about his relationship with his wife and his medical history, and 
information about his childhood. 

Patient A called Dr. Glumac “George,” and not “Dr. Glumac.” 

Dr. Glumac would begin his sessions with Patient A by praying with her, either by placing his 
hands on her shoulders and invoking a blessing; or by having Patient A kneel on the floor at his 
feet with her body between his knees, placing his hand on her head, and invoking a blessing. 

In their sessions, Dr. Glumac referred to Patient A as his “little buddy” and told her that he was 
seeing her as a friend. Dr. Glumac and Patient A also exchanged gifts during the doctor-patient 
relationship. 

Dr. Glumac introduced Patient A to a Business Advisor 
Patient A frequently told Dr. Glumac about her marital and financial problems during her 
sessions. Dr. Glumac recommended that Patient B retain his friend, Mr. X, as a business 
manager. Patient A trusted Dr. Glumac and therefore she and Patient B hired Mr. X as a 
business advisor. Ultimately, Mr. X caused Patient A and Patient B to incur significant debt. Mr. 
X has remained unaccountable for their financial losses.  

Sexual Abuse of Patient A 

In November 2009, Patient A underwent a mastectomy and went to a respite facility. In 
December 2009, Dr. Glumac visited Patient A there. The two went to the basement to be alone. 
When Dr. Glumac asked her to sit on the couch next to him, she obliged. Dr. Glumac then 
embraced her, placing his arms around her waist and rear end, kissing her neck, her ears, her 
mouth, and her lips for about 15 minutes. Eventually, Patient A stood up and walked across the 
room. Dr. Glumac followed her and continued to kiss and hug her. Patient A escorted Dr. 
Glumac to the door and he left. 

A few days later, Patient A called Dr. Glumac and asked him to return to the respite facility to 
explain his behaviour. Dr. Glumac returned and the two entered an empty bedroom together. 
When Patient A asked Dr. Glumac what his intentions were, he told her not to worry and that his 
intentions were not sexual. Dr. Glumac invited her to lay on the bed with him and asked if he 
could hug her. They lay on the bed together in a spooning position and he kissed her from 
behind. She felt his erection pressing against her. Patient A got off the bed and asked Dr. 
Glumac to leave the respite facility. 

As a result of these incidents, Patient A had planned not to return to see Dr. Glumac. But after 
enduring a difficult chemotherapy, she reached out for his support once again. At subsequent 
appointments, Dr. Glumac kissed Patient A on the lips and hugged her frequently, with his 
hands around her waist and hips.  

Borrowing $20,000.00 from Patient A and Conduct in Respect of the Borrowed Funds 

In June 2011, Patient A and Patient B inherited $40,000.00. Patient A, who felt relieved and 
excited, shared this news with Dr. Glumac. Two weeks later, Dr. Glumac telephoned Patients A 
and B to tell them he had a charitable organization but that he was short of $20,000.00. Dr. 
Glumac asked whether he could borrow $20,000.00 from Patients A and B. Patients A and B 
provided Dr. Glumac with $20,000.00 within a few days. Dr. Glumac then gave Patients A and B 
a Promissory Note acknowledging receipt and promising to repay $2500 monthly beginning in 
September 2011.  

Dr. Glumac failed to repay the funds within the first three months. He also failed to abide by the 
rest of the terms of the Promissory Note. After Patient B repeatedly requested funds, Dr. 
Glumac gave Patient B a $2000.00 cheque in November 2011. Patient A then began emailing 
Dr. Glumac asking for their money back. Patient A indicated that they would have no choice but 
to commence legal action or report Dr. Glumac to the College.  

Patient A terminated the doctor-patient relationship on January 30, 2012. 
Dr. Glumac made further payments in the spring of 2012. Dr. Glumac ultimately admitted to 
Patient A that he had borrowed the money to support his real estate management and 
investment company, and not for charitable purposes.   

Dr. Glumac and his wife telephoned Patients A and B and pleaded with them not to report him 
to the College. Dr. Glumac attended at their home and threatened them in order to prevent them 
from reporting him to the College. Dr. Glumac threatened to cease providing medications to 
Patient A. He also offered to pay Patients A and B an additional $20,000.00 if Patient A agreed 
not to report him to the College.  

In June 2012, Patients A and B reported Dr. Glumac to the College. 

In July 2012, Dr. Glumac provided Patients A and B with a certified cheque for $8000.00, which 
finally satisfying the debt owed.  

 

Failure to Maintain the Standard of Practice of the Profession and Incompetence 

The College retained Dr. C to opine on the care and treatment provided by Dr. Glumac to 
Patient A.  

The first expert, Dr. C, concluded that Dr. Glumac failed to maintain the standard of practice of 
the profession regarding Patient A’s pain management and her psychiatric care and treatment. 

(i)   Pain Management  

Dr. C opined that Dr. Glumac did not manage Patient A’s opioid therapy appropriately and 
displayed a lack of knowledge and skill in said management. He escalated her dose of 
morphine over a short period of time and did not record whether he reviewed side effects, 
including the development of addiction. Evidence suggested that Patient A might have had “too 
much” medication. Dr. Glumac never appeared to have considered other pain management 
strategies besides opioids. He also failed to change antidepressant medication in a timely 
fashion once the issue of bupropion’s effect on her breast cancer medication was noted.  

(ii)  Psychiatry Practice 

Dr. C opined that at various points in her treatment, Patient A’s depression was so severe that 
she was at risk of suicide. There is no evidence that Dr. Glumac performed an assessment for 
suicide risk, even where Dr. Glumac recorded what appeared to be suicidal gestures.  

Dr. C also identified multiple boundary issues including: having a patient call him by his first 
name, visiting the patient at her home, borrowing from and giving money to the patient, creating 
a relationship between the patient and a personal friend of the psychiatrist, praying with the 
patient, creating the image that the patient was special, and intimately touching the patient.  

Dr. C concluded that Dr. Glumac poses a risk to other patients, that Dr. Glumac does not have 
requisite skills to manage opioids, and should not be doing so.  
Inappropriate OHIP Billing regarding Patient A 

Dr. Glumac also billed the Ontario Health Insurance Plan for services he did not provide to 
Patient A. For example: he billed and was paid for 9 sessions of psychotherapy which he did not 
provide, and he billed and was paid for three sessions of psychiatric care which he did not 
provide. Dr. Glumac either billed for services he did not provide, or failed to keep clinical records 
on 16 occasions. 

Section 75(1)(a) Investigation regarding OHIP Billing 

On March 6, 2015, Dr. Glumac entered into an undertaking in lieu of the Inquiries, Complaints 
and Reports Committee making an order under section 37 of the Health Professions Procedural 
Code which required, among other things, that he cease prescribing narcotics and that he video 
monitor all patient encounters.  

The Compliance Case Manager who subsequently visited Dr. Glumac noted that he was 
conducting patient sessions over the telephone, and was billing OHIP for it. Consultations and 
assessments rendered by telephone (including services such as psychotherapy, counselling, 
primary mental health and psychiatric care), are not insured services and are not payable by 
OHIP. The College retained Dr. D to review Dr. Glumac’s OHIP billing. In all but one of 32 
patient charts that Dr. D reviewed, he found that the OHIP billing Dr. Glumac submitted failed in 
some way to meet the standard of practice of the profession.  

Dr. D observed that while many insured services were correctly billed to OHIP, Dr. Glumac 
billed OHIP for services that are uninsured. This suggested that Dr. Glumac understood and 
followed the general payment rules such as the minimum duration for time for unit based 
services and the time documentation requirements. Dr. Glumac billed OHIP for services such as 
telephone communication, Skype sessions, faxing prescriptions, certain reports, dictations, and 
research on behalf of his patients. When these uninsured services were provided, there was no 
evidence in the charts that an accompanying insured service was provided in order to justify the 
billing Dr. Glumac submitted to OHIP. In addition, Dr. Glumac billed for special visit premiums 
when the visits attached to those premiums were not eligible for premiums.  

Dr. E, another College-appointed medical inspector who reviewed Dr. Glumac’s patient charts 
also noted billing irregularities. Dr. E noted that Dr. Glumac inappropriately used psychiatric 
care codes and psychotherapy fee codes to bill for other services such as report writing, 
communicating with third parties, and faxing prescriptions, which are uninsured services. 

Disposition 

The Discipline Committee ordered and directed that: 

?  the Registrar revoke Dr. Glumac’s certificate of registration effective immediately. 
?  Dr. Glumac reimburse the College for funding provided to patients under the program 
   required under section 85.7 of the Code, and to post an irrevocable letter of credit or other 
   security acceptable to the College to guarantee payment of such amounts within thirty (30) 
   days of the date this Order becomes final, in the amount of $16,060.00;  
?  Dr. Glumac appear before the panel to be reprimanded; and 
?  Dr. Glumac pay costs to the College in the amount of $5,000.00 within thirty (30) days of the 
   date this Order becomes final.

Decision: Download Full Decision (PDF)
Hearing Date(s): March 21, 2016

Concerns

Source: Member
Active Date: September 22, 2016
Expiry Date:
Summary:
Summary of the Undertaking given by Dr. George Glumac to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, effective September 22, 2016:

Dr. Glumac’s certificate of registration was revoked by the Discipline Committee on March 21, 2016.

Dr. Glumac was the subject of two additional College Investigations into whether he breached a College Undertaking and whether he engaged in boundary violations, breached patient confidentiality and failed to maintain patient records. In the face of these investigations, Dr. Glumac has agreed never to seek reinstatement or to apply or re-apply for registration as a physician in Ontario or any other jurisdiction.
Download Full Document (PDF)