Kamermans, Rob Joseph (CPSO#: 65623)

Current Status: Revoked: Discipline Committee as of 26 Jul 2016

CPSO Registration Class: None as of N/A

Indicates a concern or additional information

Summary

Former Name: No Former Name

Gender: Male

Languages Spoken: Dutch, English, Spanish

Education:University of New Mexico, 1992

Practice Information

Primary Location of Practice
Practice Address Not Available

Medical Records Location

Instructions: Patients looking for a copy of their medical records may send a letter directly to Dr. Kamermans at his office.
Date Received: 28 Feb 2012

Medical Licences in Other Jurisdictions

Effective September 1, 2015, the College by-laws require the College to indicate on the register if the member has a licence or is registered to practise medicine in a jurisdiction outside Ontario, if this is known to the College.

USA - New Mexico

Post Graduate Training

Please note: This information may not be a complete record of post-graduate training.

University of Ottawa, 01 Jul 1993 to 30 Jun 1994
Resident 2 - Family Medicine

Registration History

Action Issue Date
First certificate of registration issued: Postgraduate Education Certificate Effective: 01 Jul 1992
Transfer of class of registration to: Independent Practice Certificate Effective: 08 Jul 1993
Transfer of class of certificate to: Restricted certificate Effective: 22 Feb 2013
Terms and conditions amended Effective: 27 Feb 2013
Revoked: Discipline Committee. Effective: 26 Jul 2016
Revoked: Discipline Committee. Effective: 25 Sep 2017

Pending Discipline Hearings

Summary: Dr. Rob Joseph Kamermans (January 23, 2013 and January 8, 2014) Allegations of Dr. Kamermans' professional misconduct have been referred to the Discipline Committee of the College. Specifically, it is alleged that in relation to the endorsement of medical declarations pursuant to the Marihuana Medical Access Regulations ("Marihuana Declarations"), Dr. Kamermans is incompetent and/or failed to maintain the standard of practice of the profession, falsified records relating to his practice, signed or issued, in his professional capacity, documents that he knew, or ought to have known, were false or misleading, permitted, counseled or assisted persons who are not members of the College to perform acts which should be performed by a member, and engaged in acts or omissions relevant to the practice of medicine that, having regard to all the circumstances, would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional.

Hearing Status: Adjourned

Previous Discipline Hearings

Committee: Discipline
Decision Date: 25 Sep 2017
Summary:

On July 25, 2017, the Discipline Committee found that Dr. Rob Joseph Kamermans committed 
an act of professional misconduct, in that:  1) he has failed to maintain the standard of practice of 
the profession; 2) he has engaged in 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; 3) the governing body of a health profession in a jurisdiction 
other than Ontario has found that Dr. Kamermans committed an act of professional misconduct 
that would, in the opinion of the panel of the Discipline Committee holding this hearing, be an 
act of professional misconduct; and, 4) the governing body of a health profession in a jurisdiction 
other than Ontario has made a finding of professional misconduct or a similar finding against Dr. 
Kamermans, and the finding is based on facts which would be an act of professional misconduct. 
 
Dr. Kamermans is a family physician who had a practice in Coe Hill, Ontario.  
 
Failing to Maintain the Standard of Practice 
 
In October, 2013, the College received a letter of complaint expressing concern about Dr. 
Kamermans’ prescribing of narcotics and controlled substances. The College retained a medical 
expert, who reviewed the standard of care provided by Dr. Kamermans. Upon review of twenty-
five of Dr. Kamerman’s patient charts, the medical expert reported that eleven out of twenty-five 
patient charts were deficient with respect to narcotic prescribing and the medical records in all 
the files were disorganized. Dr. Kamermans admitted to not reviewing his patients' old files, 
which resulted in him overlooking some crucial pieces of information. 
 
The medical expert noted that the control over who and what was prescribed often seemed to be 
in the hands of the patients, and not Dr. Kamermans’.  Also, that by failing to maintain tight 
prescribing boundaries in patients with current or prior addictions, both the patients and their 
communities were placed at risk.  
 
Noting that during their interview Dr. Kamermans commented, “we are not the police”, 
the medical expert emphasized in her report that the application of universal precautions 
in opiate prescribing is crucial, given that it is not possible to always know what patients 
may be doing with their medications and that despite Dr. Kamerman’s best intentions, 
safety was compromised by his benzodiazepine, hypnotic, and opioid prescribing 
practices.   
 
In an addendum to her report dated March 9, 2015, the medical expert reiterated her concerns 
with respect to Dr. Kamerman’s prescribing of controlled substances and confirmed her opinion 
that his medical records were “inadequate”.  
 
Failing to Notify Other Jurisdictions of Action Taken by Discipline Committee 
 
On February 27, 2013, the Discipline Committee found that Dr. Kamermans committed an act of 
professional misconduct, in that he failed to maintain the standard of practice of the profession. 
Among other things, the Committee ordered and directed that Dr. Kamermans be reprimanded 
and imposed terms, conditions and limitations on Dr. Kamermans’ certificate of registration.   
 
In March 2014, the Disciplinary Subcommittee of the Michigan Medical Board (the “Michigan 
Medical Board”) found that Dr. Kamermans violated the Public Health Code by failing to notify 
it, within 30 days, of the action taken by the Discipline Committee on February 27, 2013.  As a 
result, the Michigan Medical Board imposed terms, conditions and limitations on Dr. 
Kamermans’ licence in Michigan, and ordered that he pay a fine.  
 
In January, 2015, the New Mexico Medical Board made an order reprimanding Dr. Kamermans 
for failing to make a timely report of the action taken by the Discipline Committee of this 
College on February 27, 2013 and failure to report the action taken by the Michigan Medical 
Board in April 2014, and imposed conditions on his licence in New Mexico.  
 
Penalty 
 
The following facts were presented during the penalty portion of the hearing:   
 
Preceptorship and Reassessment arising out of 2013 Discipline Committee Order 
    
As part of the Discipline Committee’s Order dated February 27, 2013, Dr. Kamermans was 
required to undergo a one-year preceptorship, followed by a Comprehensive Practice Assessment 
by an assessor or assessors appointed by the College. Dr. Kamermans completed the practice 
preceptorship between April, 2013 and February, 2014 and then underwent the Comprehensive 
Practice Assessment. In her report dated March 31, 2015 the College assessor who conducted the 
Comprehensive Practice Assessment identified a number of concerns with respect to Dr. 
Kamermans' family medicine practice and made the following recommendations: 
       
-  continue chart review to address issues 
-  CME regarding management of patients with chronic diseases 
-  CME regarding current Canadian Screening Guidelines 
-  CME regarding Immunizations 
-  CME regarding guidelines for care of infants and children 
-  CME regarding Osteoporosis 
-  CME regarding Menopause 
-  Equipping office to deal with medical emergencies 
-  Adopting procedure recommended by CMPA for firing patients in practice. 
                
Discipline Committee Decision Resulting in Revocation 
 
On November 7, 2014, the Discipline Committee found that Dr. Kamermans committed an act of 
professional misconduct, in that he failed to maintain the standard of practice of the profession. 
The Committee also found that Dr. Kamermans is incompetent. Dr. Kamermans failed to 
maintain the standard of practice of the profession in his care and treatment in the Emergency 
Department of six patients and in his medical documentation regarding nine patients. Dr. 
Kamermans’ deficiencies in his care and treatment of the six patients displayed a lack of 
knowledge and judgment of a nature and to an extent that the allegation of incompetence was 
proved. The Committee ordered and directed that: 
 
-  The Registrar revoke Dr. Kamermans’ certificate of registration; 
-  Dr. Kamermans appear before the Committee to be reprimanded; and  
-  Dr. Kamermans pay costs to the College in the amount of $28,098.00.  
 
On August 24, 2016, Dr. Kamermans appealed the Discipline Committee’s decision to the 
Divisional Court of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. 
 
Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee Caution – 2013 
 
In September, 2013, the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee cautioned Dr. 
Kamermans about offering appropriate analgesics and arranging proper follow-up treatment.  
 
Disposition 
 
On July 25, 2017, the Discipline Committee reserved its decision on penalty. On 
September 25, 2017, the Discipline Committee ordered and directed on the matter of 
penalty and costs that: 
 
-  The Registrar revoke Dr. Kamermans’ certificate of registration, effective immediately. 
-  Dr. Kamermans appear before the panel to be reprimanded. 
-  Dr. Kamermans pay costs to the College in the amount of $5,500.00 within thirty (30) days 
   of the date this Order becomes final.

Decision: Download Full Decision (PDF)
Hearing Date(s): July 25, 2017


Committee: Discipline
Decision Date: 07 Nov 2014
Summary:

On November 7, 2014, the Discipline Committee found that Dr. Rob Joseph Kamermans 
committed an act of professional misconduct, in that he failed to maintain the standard of 
practice of the profession. The Committee also found that Dr. Kamermans is incompetent. 

Dr. Kamermans failed to maintain the standard of practice of the profession in his care and 
treatment in the Emergency Department of six patients (Patients 1 to 6) and in his medical 
documentation regarding nine patients (Patients 1 to 6, 12, 14, and 22). Dr. Kamermans’ 
deficiencies in his care and treatment of the six patients displayed a lack of knowledge and 
judgment of a nature and to an extent that the allegation of incompetence was proved. 
 
Regarding Patient #1, a child who presented with fever, stomach ache and vomiting, Dr. 
Kamermans failed to maintain the standard of practice in his documentation and care. Dr. 
Kamermans failed to do an ultrasound to rule out appendicitis, a significant differential 
diagnosis, and was deficient in his assessment and treatment of what he described as pharyngitis. 
Dr. Kamermans’ deficiencies in his care of this patient displayed a lack of knowledge and 
judgment. 
 
Regarding Patient #2, an adult patient with rectal bleeding, rectal pain and a recent diagnosis of 
metastatic rectal cancer, Dr. Kamermans’ documentation and care failed to meet the standard of 
practice. Dr. Kamermans failed to properly evaluate the rectal bleeding and failed to adequately 
manage the rectal pain. Dr. Kamermans displayed a lack of knowledge and judgment in his 
investigation and management of the patient and in his inability to outline his approach to this 
patient. 
 
Regarding Patient #3, an elderly patient with chest tightness, intermittent shortness of breath for 
the preceding twelve hours, heart rate of 162 and an implanted pacemaker/defibrillator, Dr. 
Kamermans diagnosed supraventricular tachycardia (SVT), rather than the correct diagnosis of 
ventricular tachycardia (VT), and prescribed Diltiazem, a medication which was contraindicated 
for this patient. When his treatment failed and the patient’s symptoms worsened, Dr. Kamermans 
called in a consultant who properly treated the patient. The Committee found that Dr. 
Kamermans’ care and documentation for this patient failed to meet the standard of practice and 
that he displayed a lack of judgment and a cavalier attitude considering the urgency of the 
situation. The Committee found that Dr. Kamermans demonstrated a lack of knowledge and 
judgment that the evidence established persists to the present day. 
 
Regarding Patient #4, a child with respiratory distress, shortness of breath, a slightly dusky 
appearance and moderate to severe croup, Dr. Kamermans’ care of this patient failed to meet the 
standard of practice both in terms of documentation and treatment of this sick child. Dr. 
Kamermans used medication that was not helpful for croup and was not up to date with the 
current medication standards. The Committee found that Dr. Kamermans demonstrated a lack of 
knowledge and judgment with regard to the treatment of croup and that his knowledge deficits 
are current. 
 
Regarding Patient #5, a child who was brought to Emergency with a history of possible 
antifreeze ingestion, Dr. Kamermans failed to maintain the standard of practice and was   
cavalier in the treatment of this patient. Dr. Kamermans appropriately obtained information from 
the Poison Control Centre but did not use it. He failed to order the recommended blood work, he 
failed to order an adequate observation period, and he assumed the child had not ingested much 
without any grounds to make that assumption, and he failed to appreciate the serious risk to the 
child of ingesting even a small amount. It was the Committee’s view that Dr. Kamermans’ 
knowledge and judgment deficiencies persist with respect to how to properly address the issue of 
the ingestion of antifreeze by a child. 

Regarding Patient #6, an elderly patient with dementia who presented to the Emergency after an 
unwitnessed fall, Dr. Kamermans failed to maintain the standard of practice in his investigation, 
evaluation and documentation.  The Committee found Dr. Kamermans’ investigation of the 
causal factors rudimentary. Although he said his physical examination of the heart would rule 
out some cardiac causes, he did not do an ECG, which would have been indicated. Similarly, he 
did not do further x-rays or a CT scan of the neck, which was indicated by Canadian standards. 
The Committee found Dr. Kamermans’ knowledge and judgment in the care of this patient 
deficient, and that those deficiencies are current.  

 

***PENALTY*** 
On July 26, 2016, the Committee ordered and directed that: 

   -  The Registrar revoke Dr. Kamermans’ certificate of registration at 11:59 p.m. on the date 
      of this Order.  
   -  Dr. Kamermans appear before the Committee to be reprimanded within 3 months of the 
      date that this Order becomes final. 
   -  Dr. Kamermans pay costs to the College in the amount of $28,098.00 within 6 months of 
      the date that this Order becomes final. 

 

PLEASE CLICK “Decision: Download Full Decision (PDF)” BELOW FOR THE FINAL 
DECISION ON FINDING AND PENALTY 

 

APPEAL 

On August 24, 2016, Dr. Kamermans appealed the Discipline Committee’s decision to the 
Divisional Court of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice.

Decision: Download Full Decision (PDF)
Appeal: Notice of Appeal
Hearing Date(s): June 2-6, June 16, 2014 (Hearing) January 18-20, 2016 (Penalty)


Committee: Discipline
Decision Date: 27 Feb 2013
Summary:

On February 27, 2013, the Discipline Committee found that Dr. Rob Joseph Kamermans 
committed an act of professional misconduct, in that he failed to maintain the standard of 
practice of the profession. Dr. Kamermans admitted the allegation.  
 
Dr. Kamermans is a family physician. In the course of a s.75(b) investigation into Dr. 
Kamermans' practice, the College's expert opined that Dr. Kamermans failed to maintain the 
standard of practice in his care and treatment of 21 of the 25 patients under review. Among other 
concerns, the expert expressed the following concerns regarding Dr. Kamermans's standard of 
practise: 
(a)   Inadequate medical record keeping, including absence of a Cumulative Patient Profile, 
medical history and family history, and failure to record examinations, vital signs, test results, 
patient complaints, medications and treatment plan;  
(b)   Improper use of Cerumex and irrigation as treatment for a pimple in a patient's ear;  
(c)   Inadequate follow up on a patient's elevated cholesterol and triglycerides; 
(d)   Failure to follow up on a patient following a decrease in her pain medication;  
(e)   Failure to follow up with a patient following a prescription of Crestor;  
(f)   Inadequate investigation and treatment of on-going hypertension in multiple patients, and 
failure to make an urgent referral to a cardiologist or emergency department in the face of a 
patient's hypertensive crises;  
(g)   Inadequate management of Type II Diabetes;  
(h)   Inadequate management of hypercholesterolemia in multiple patients;  
(i)   Failure to follow up on lab results showing abnormal haemoglobin, creatinine and GFR 
levels;  
(j)   Failure to document dosages of medication; and 
(k)   Failure to document a cardiovascular risk analysis where indicated.  
 
Since May, 2012, Dr. Kamermans has practised under the supervision of a Clinical Supervisor. 
According to the Clinical Supervisor, Dr. Kamermans has been compliant and cooperative in 
fulfilling the requirements of the supervision agreement. 
 
The Committee ordered and directed that: 
"     Dr. Kamermans attend before this panel to be reprimanded. 
"     the Registrar impose the following terms, conditions and limitations on Dr. Kamermans' 
certificate of registration: 
(i)   Dr. Kamermans shall undergo a preceptorship for a duration of one year (the 
"Preceptorship") under the supervision of a preceptor acceptable to the College (the "Preceptor"). 
The Preceptor shall sign an Undertaking in the form attached to the Order as Appendix "A", and 
the Preceptorship shall include monthly chart reviews of 25 patient charts, selected by the 
Preceptor in his/her sole discretion, monthly meetings for discussion of any concerns and 
recommendations of the preceptor, and monthly reports to the College by the Preceptor;  
(ii)  Effective as of the date of this Order, and until such time as Dr. Kamermans has 
completed the Preceptorship, Dr. Kamermans shall practise only under the supervision of his 
College-approved Preceptor. If Dr. Kamermans' Preceptor is, at any time, unwilling or unable to 
continue to fulfill the terms of the Order and Appendix "A" [to the Order], Dr. Kamermans shall, 
within ten (10) days, obtain an Undertaking in the same form from a person who is acceptable to 
the College, failing which Dr. Kamermans shall immediately cease practice until this requirement 
is satisfied;  
(iii) Following the completion of the Preceptorship, Dr. Kamermans shall undergo a 
Comprehensive Practise Assessment by an assessor or assessors appointed by the College (the 
"Assessor(s)");  
(iv)  Dr. Kamermans shall abide by any and all recommendations of his Preceptor(s), and the 
Assessor(s), including with respect to any practice improvements and/or ongoing professional 
development and/or education;  
(v)   Dr. Kamermans shall be solely responsible for all fees, costs and expenses associated 
with his compliance with the terms of the Order.  
"     Dr. Kamermans pay costs to the College in the amount of $3,650.00 within 30 days of the 
date of this Order. 
 
 
 

Decision: Download Full Decision (PDF)
Appeal: No Appeal
Hearing Date(s): February 27, 2013

Concerns

Source: Member
Active Date: June 4, 2015
Expiry Date:
Summary:
Criminal Charges:

Where a member has been charged with an offence under the Criminal Code of Canada or the Ontario Health Insurance Act and the charge is outstanding and is known to the College, the College By-laws require, effective May 29, 2015, certain information about the charge to be posted on the register.

See PDF for outstanding charges against this member, as known to the College, together with the corresponding information:
Download Full Document (PDF)


Source: Member
Active Date: June 3, 2015
Expiry Date:
Summary:
Criminal Charges:

Where a member has been charged with an offence under the Criminal Code of Canada or the Ontario Health Insurance Act and the charge is outstanding and is known to the College, the College By-laws require, effective May 29, 2015, certain information about the charge to be posted on the register.

The following are outstanding charges against this member, as known to the College, together with the corresponding information:

It is alleged that Rob KAMERMANS on or about November 1, 2011 did:

(1) attempt to traffic in a substance included in Schedule II to wit: Cannabis (marihuana) contrary to section 5 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and section 24 of the Criminal Code; and

(2) attempt to traffic in a substance included in Schedule II to wit: Cannabis (marihuana contrary to section 5 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and section 24 of the Criminal Code.

Date of charges: May 18, 2012
Place of charges: Halifax, Nova Scotia
Royal Canadian Mounted Police


Source: Member
Active Date: June 3, 2015
Expiry Date:
Summary:
Criminal Charges:

Where a member has been charged with an offence under the Criminal Code of Canada or the Ontario Health Insurance Act and the charge is outstanding and is known to the College, the College By-laws require, effective May 29, 2015, certain information about the charge to be posted on the register.

The following are outstanding charges against this member, as known to the College, together with the corresponding information:

It is alleged that Robert J. KAMERMANS on or about August 17, 2012 at the township of Wollaston did being at large on his recognizance entered into by Justice of the Peace Chapelle and being bound to comply with a condition of that recognizance directed by the said Justice of the Peace fail without lawful excuse to comply with that condition to wit:

(a) not to personally or have anyone on your behalf, liquidate, dispose of, transfer or encumber, in any manner, assets, including but not limited to real or moveable property, cash, GICs, RRSPs, bonds, stocks, mutual funds or other redeemable asset that are in your name or jointly held by you or in which you hold a beneficial interest except to meet reasonable day to day living expenses or current legal expenses or after having provided to Dan Relves of the Ontario Provincial Police or his designate personally, notice in writing fifteen (15) days in advance.

(b) Notice is defined as: naming the thing to be dealt with (GIC, Cash, real property etc.) including any identifying features or numbers (Serial Number, VIN, Legal Description etc.), the place that it is currently held, the manner in which it will be dealt with (transfer, sale, mortgage etc.), the value of the thing at present and the value to be redeemed, encumbered, liquidated, etc. contrary to Section 811 of the Criminal Code of Canada.

Date of charges: August 18, 2012
Place of charges: Kingston, ON
Ontario Provincial Police


Source: Member
Active Date: December 11, 2014
Expiry Date:
Summary:
Bail Conditions:

Effective December 4, 2014, the College By-laws require members to report to the College any currently existing conditions of release (" bail conditions") following a charge for a criminal or provincial offence or subsequent to a finding of guilt and pending appeal. The following are conditions of release made against this member that relate to this member’s practice of medicine:

[August 27, 2012]

All referrals to medical specialists will be done in writing with one copy of the referral sent directly to the medical specialist and one retained for your records.
Not to possess any C.D.S.A. listed substances.
Not to possess or issue any B1 or B2 Medical Practitioner’s Forms for Category 1 or Category 2 Applicants and not to sign any renewals of B1 or B2 Medical Practitioner’s Forms or any form that authorizes any person to possess or produce marihuana.