Dr. Joffee
POPULAR |
|
Read more: http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/toronto/archive/200 8/12/11/md-s-licence-revoked-after-sex-with-four-patients-in cluding-twin-sisters.aspx#ixzz0sxpWGKkQ
Here is his latest ad - beware! He's back in Mexico - god help those patients that go to him not knowing his past.
http://www.ambisurgery.com/about-surgeons.php
I would consider your friends lucky but would never recommend a friend of mine to have surgery done by a surgeon that's lost a licence. Your friends were not his type, he didn't drug them to have sex with them.
http://www.cpso.on.ca/docsearch/details.aspx?view=6&ddid=528 &id= 53039
CPSO#:
« Back to Search Results | Printable Version
Error in operation.« Back to Additional Information
Past Findings: Details
Committee: Discipline
Appeal Status: No Appeal Appeal Decision Date:
Hearing Date: 11 Dec 2008 Decision Date: 11 Dec 2008
Publication Date: December 2009
Decision Summary:
Allegations
It was alleged that Dr. Jacobo Joffe committed acts of professional misconduct, in that:
- he has sexually abused patients; and
- he has engaged in an act or omission relevant to the practice of medicine that, having regard to all the cir****tances, would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional.
Response to the Allegations
Dr. Joffe entered a plea of no contest to the allegations.
Facts and Evidence
The following Uncontested Allegations for a Plea of No Contest were presented to the Committee:
Dr. Joffe, a general surgeon, did not contest the following facts for the purposes of this proceeding only:
Patients A and B
In 2001, Patients A and B were referred to Dr. Joffe for weight loss surgery and attended at his Scarborough office for consultation.
Dr. Joffe performed gastric by-pass surgery on Patient A in 2002. Patient B’s gastric surgery was booked for 2002 but she cancelled her appointment. Dr. Joffe eventually performed gastric bypass surgery on Patient B in 2005.
Patient B attended for consultation with Dr. Joffe for lap band surgery and eventually had this procedure done in 2003.
In early 2003, during follow-up care and other medical needs, Dr. Joffe would hug and kiss Patients A and B on their lips and tell them how attractive they were.
In the summer of 2003, Dr. Joffe engaged in sexual touching and kissing of Patient A at his office.
In December 2003, Patients A and B attended a Christmas party with the lap band support patients and Dr. Joffe. Dr. Joffe remarked that Patients A and B were “hot." Dr. Joffe kissed them on the lips and hugged them.
In January 2004, Dr. Joffe arranged to meet Patients A and B at a hotel, where Dr. Joffe engaged both women in sexual touching and kissing. On this date, Dr. Joffe also engaged Patient A in oral sex as well as intercourse at her residence.
Between January 2004 and 2006, while Patients A and B were still his patients, Dr. Joffe attended their home approximately every two weeks and almost every week during the summer months where he engaged in various sexual acts with them, both separately and together, including fondling, ******** *********** and sexual intercourse. They also engaged in sexual acts in his office.
During these attendances, Dr. Joffe initiated and engaged in illicit drug use with Patients A and B, which Patient A purchased for Dr. Joffe at his request.
Dr. Joffe took steps to conceal his relationship with Patients A and B, knowing the professional consequences to him if the relationship was discovered.
Patient C
In 2002, Dr. Joffe performed lap band surgery on Patient C.
Commencing approximately two weeks following the lap band surgery, and while she was still his patient, Dr. Joffe initiated and engaged in sexual activities with Patient C, including oral sex and sexual intercourse. These sexual activities occasionally occurred at the hospital when Patient C attended at Dr. Joffe for follow-up appointments and adjustments of her lap band.
Dr. Joffe told Patient C not to reveal their relationship to anyone, knowing the professional consequences to him if the relationship was discovered.
Patient D
In 1999, Dr. Joffe performed gastroplasty on Patient D.
During follow-up medical visits post-operatively, and while she was still his patient, Dr. Joffe initiated and engaged in various types of sexual encounters with Patient D, including oral sex, and sexual intercourse. On occasion, these sexual encounters occurred at the hospital. In 2005, Dr. Joffe performed lap band surgery on Patient D. Their sexual relationship lasted until 2006.
Dr. Joffe told Patient D to keep their relationship a secret, knowing the professional consequences to him if the relationship was discovered.
Findings
The Committee reviewed and accepted as correct all of the facts set out in the Uncontested Allegations for a Plea of No Contest. Having regard to these uncontested facts, the Committee accepted the plea of no contest and found that Dr. Joffe committed acts of professional misconduct, in that he:
(a) sexually abused patients; and
(b) engaged in an act or omission relevant to the practice of medicine that, having regard to all the cir****tances, would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional.
Reasons for Findings
In making the finding of sexual abuse, the Committee had particular regard for the egregious nature of the conduct, which was repeated over a significant period of time and involved a number of patients. These acts took place in a variety of settings including a hospital, doctor’s office and patient homes, all of which should be considered safe settings. The scope of the sexual abuse committed by Dr. Joffe deeply offends the decency of the profession.
In making the finding as set out in the second allegation, the Committee had particular regard for the coercion of patients to obtain illicit drugs for use during the described sexual encounters. Additionally, Dr. Joffe pressured patients not to reveal the nature of the sexual relationships, knowing the professional consequences. These actions demonstrate a lack of understanding and respect for the moral and ethical responsibilities of a physician.
Reasons for Penalty
On the matter of penalty, the Committee reviewed the findings, heard submissions of counsel and reviewed four Victim Impact Statements filed by the College and two letters of support filed by Dr. Joffe.
There was no disagreement between counsel with respect to the need for a reprimand or for revocation of Dr. Joffe’s certificate of registration. Indeed, even if it were not required by law, the Committee was of the opinion that nothing short of revocation could adequately express the profession’s abhorrence of such conduct. The extent and degree of Dr. Joffe’s violation of patients speaks to a moral and ethical vacuum. Dr. Joffe has breached the most fundamental trust with his patients.
The College has requested that Dr. Joffe reimburse the College for funding provided to patients under the program required under the Code, by posting an irrevocable letter of credit or other security acceptable to the College, in the amount of $40,000.
The College is entitled to recover from the member money paid in accordance with this section for complainants’ therapy or counselling. The Committee was of the opinion that the request for an irrevocable letter of credit by the College was not unreasonable given all of the cir****tances of this case. The Committee had particular regard for the poignant description of the effects experienced by patients noted in their respective Victim Impact Statements, whi*****luded humiliation, distortion of normal social relationships, fear of hospitals and physicians, destruction of family relationships, depression, psychological problems and employment problems. These problems flowed from Dr. Joffe’s professional misconduct and the Committee felt that he should bear the financial responsibility for the consequences of his actions, not the membership at large.
The two letters from colleagues attesting to Dr. Joffe’s professional status and technical skill indicate a senior surgeon of repute.While this makes his failings with respect to the findings on this matter all the more tragic, the Committee was of the opinion that they had no role as a mitigating factor in the offences described.
The Committee believes that the penalty proposed by the College, given all of the cir****tances of this case, is appropriate, and meets the principles of protection of the public, denunciation of the conduct, and specific and general deterrence.
The Committee has concluded that this is an appropriate case to make an award of costs.
Penalty
The Committee directed that:
- The Registrar revoke Dr. Joffe’s certificate of registration effective immediately.
- Dr. Joffe appear before the panel to be reprimanded.
- Dr. Joffe reimburse the College for funding provided to patients under the program required under section 85.7 of the Code, by posting an irrevocable letter of credit or other security acceptable to the College in the amount of $40,000.
- Dr. Joffe pay costs to the College in the amount of $3,650.
- The results of this proceeding be included in the register.
Thank you Cheri and Holly!
Think twice, cut once! I've had 3 surgeries now, RNY, VSG and DS .
Ask me about the DS or visit dsfacts.com
2002 - RNY
2010 - RNY to VSG
2011 - Full DS-August 24th
HW 311 SW 306 CW 235 GW 150
Thank you Cheri and Holly!
Think twice, cut once! I've had 3 surgeries now, RNY, VSG and DS .
Ask me about the DS or visit dsfacts.com
2002 - RNY
2010 - RNY to VSG
2011 - Full DS-August 24th
HW 311 SW 306 CW 235 GW 150