Hill, David James (CPSO#: 27853)

Current Status: Suspended as of 24 Sep 2015

CPSO Registration Class: Restricted as of 17 Dec 2014

Indicates a concern or additional information

Summary

Former Name: No Former Name

Gender: Male

Languages Spoken: English, French, Gaelic, Italian, Spanish

Education:National University of Ireland, 1971

Practice Information

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

Professional Corporation Information

Corporation Name: David Hill Medicine Professional Corporation

Certificate of Authorization Status: Inactive: May 12 2016

Registration History

Action Issue Date
First certificate of registration issued: Temporary Employment Practice Certificate Effective: 29 Jan 1975
Transfer of class of registration to: Independent Practice Certificate Effective: 04 Sep 1975
Transfer of class of certificate to: Restricted certificate Effective: 17 Dec 2014
Terms and conditions amended by Inquiries, Complaints and Repo Effective: 24 Jun 2015
Suspension of registration imposed: Discipline Committee Effective: 24 Sep 2015

Practice Restrictions

Registration Status: Suspended     Effective From: 24 Sep 2015


Imposed By Effective Date Expiry Date Status
Discipline Committee Effective: 24 Sep 2015 Active

Previous Discipline Hearings

Committee: Discipline
Decision Date: 02 Dec 2016
Summary:

On December 2, 2016, the Discipline Committee found that Dr. David James Hill has engaged in an act 
of professional misconduct in that he has failed to maintain the standard of practice of the profession; 
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; and is incompetent as defined by the Code.  
 
Dr. Hill, a family physician with a solo office practice in Toronto, retired from active practice in 2015. 
 
Patient A, Dr. Hill’s former patient, made a complaint to the College that Dr. Hill had missed a diagnosis 
of colon cancer. Patient A’s complaint led to an investigation by the College. The matter was ultimately 
referred to the Discipline Committee. 
 
FAILURE TO MAINTAIN THE STANDARD OF PRACTICE 
 
The Committee found that Dr. Hill failed to maintain the standard of practice of the profession with 
respect to Patient A: 
   1. Although Dr. Hill saw Patient A on dozens of occasions, visits were devoted exclusively to 
      treating episodic and chronic illness and minimal attention was paid to prevention of disease; 
   2. Dr. Hill’s notes with respect to Patient A were vague and repetitive with little documentation of 
      physical findings or specifics with regard to history, investigations, or treatment; 
   3. The cumulative patient profile (CPP) used by Dr. Hill was out of date and incomplete with 
      important data on family history missing; 
   4. Dr. Hill failed to document a proper family history, which may have led to a screening 
      colonoscopy; and  
   5. Dr. Hill failed to properly document or investigate Patient A’s abdominal pain in 2010, which 
      may have led to a delay in the diagnosis of his cancer. 
 
The Committee also found that Dr. Hill failed to maintain the standard of practice of the profession in his 
record keeping in Patient A’s case and in 24 of the other 25 patient cases that were reviewed. 
 
An expert retained by Dr. Hill opined that Dr. Hill’s charting fell below the standard of practice of the 
profession for recordkeeping, describing Dr. Hill’s documentation of patient records as “unacceptably 
brief” and agreed with the College expert that there was a marked deterioration after 2010, saying “the 
documentation of patient encounters most often is too deficient to permit a full and fair determination of 
the quality of care Dr. Hill’s patients receive.”  
 
The Committee also found that Dr. Hill failed to maintain the standard of practice of the profession with 
respect to his recordkeeping by copying sections of notes from one patient file to another.  
 
The Committee additionally found that Dr. Hill failed to maintain the standard of practice of the 
profession with respect to his investigation of patient complaints and referrals for testing. In some cases, 
Dr. Hill under-investigated complaints. In other cases, he over-investigated.  
 
The Committee further found that Dr. Hill failed to maintain the standard of practice of the profession 
with respect to his treatment of diabetic patients. The College expert opined that Dr. Hill’s diabetic 
control for one particular patient was “terrible with no indication of referral to a diabetes education 
program, discussions with the patient, or a referral to an endocrinologist.” The expert retained by Dr. Hill 
supported the College expert’s concerns with respect to this patient.  
 
 
 
                                        
 

DISGRACEFUL, DISHONORABLE, OR UNPROFESSIONAL CONDUCT 
 
The Committee found that Dr. Hill engaged in conduct that was disgraceful, dishonorable, or 
unprofessional in two respects: in his communications with Patient A; and in his falsification of patient 
records.  
 
Although Patient A’s demands for financial compensation following the diagnosis of his rectal cancer 
may have been inappropriate, Dr. Hill’s response was unprofessional in trying to paint Patient A as a 
person with mental health issues. 
 
The College expert testified that falsification of records by duplicating patient charts occurred in 11 of the 
26 charts he reviewed. Chart pages were duplicated and reproduced in anywhere between one to five 
other patient charts. The College expert determined that for one chart, the entire clinical record was a 
forgery.  
 
Dr. Hill admitted to copying charts, and testified that this practice went on over a period of five to seven 
years. However, the Committee found that forgeries were evident in the charts going back to 2004.  
 
INCOMPETENCE 
 
The Committee determined that Dr. Hill’s charting and patient care reflects a lack of knowledge, skill and 
judgment to an extent that demonstrates that he is unfit to continue to practise or that his practice should 
be restricted. The Committee found that Dr. Hill is incompetent. 
 
The College expert concluded that since at least 2010, Dr. Hill’s level of practice has seriously degraded 
to the point where he believes Dr. Hill to be incompetent and engaging in substandard care. He also 
concluded that Dr. Hill had significant knowledge gaps for common medical conditions and often under-
investigated or over-investigated patients. There was no evidence that Dr. Hill had any insight into his 
failures or had changed his practice to comply with the standards of practice of the profession. 
 
PENALTY  
 
On March 9, 2017, the Discipline Committee reserved its decision on penalty. On May 17, 2017, the 
Discipline Committee released its decision on penalty and ordered that: 
 
   -  The Registrar revoke Dr. Hill certificate of registration, effective immediately. 
   -  Dr. Hill attend before the panel to be reprimanded, within 60 days of the date this order 
      becomes final. 
   -  Dr. Hill pay costs in the amount of $69,538.00, within 60 days of the date this order 
      becomes final. 
 
APPEAL 
 
Dr. Hill appealed the Committee’s December 2, 2016 Decision on Finding to the Divisional 
Court of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. The Notice of Appeal was served on the College 
on December 27, 2016. 
 
On June 10, 2017, Dr. Hill appealed the decision of May 17, 2017, of the Discipline Committee, 
on penalty and costs. 
 
Pursuant to s.71 of the Code, the Discipline Committee’s decision remains in effect despite the 
appeal.

Decision: Download Full Decision (PDF)
Appeal: No Appeal
Hearing Date(s): Hearing Dates: February 16, 17, March 1, 2 and March 28, 29, 30, 2016, June 3, 2016 Penalty Hearing Date: March 9, 2017

Concerns

Source: ICR Committee
Active Date: September 6, 2017
Expiry Date:
Summary:
Specified Continuing Education and Remediation Program:

A summary of a decision of the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee in which the disposition includes a Specified Continuing Education and Remediation Program (“SCERP”) is required by the College By-laws to be posted on the register, along with a note if the decision has been appealed. A SCERP is one of the dispositions that the College’s Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee may make in connection with a matter before it, and this disposition requires the member to complete an education and remediation program specified for the member. A note will also be posted when all the elements of the SCERP have been completed. The summary will be removed from the register if the decision is overturned on appeal or review. Note that this requirement only applies to decisions arising out of a complaint dated on or after January 1, 2015 or if there was no complaint, the first appointment of investigators dated on or after January 1, 2015.

See PDF for the summary of a decision made against this member in which the disposition includes a SCERP:
Download Full Document (PDF)