Lise Thibert

1. In or about the summer of 2003 Ms. Thibert performed two assessments of Client A for ADP purposes. The first was in respect of a powered wheel chair. The second was in respect of a powered scooter.
2. In the first assessment, Ms. Thibert was accompanied by a vendor, who had arranged the visit. The vendor issued a cheque to Client A for $70 which Client A endorsed over to Ms. Thibert to pay for the cost of the assessment.
3. After the first assessment ADP approved the funding of the wheelchair.
4. Client A decided to seek a powered scooter instead. Ms. Thibert attended with another vendor chosen by Client A to conduct that assessment.
5. Ms. Thibert took the original of the ADP approval documentation from Client A and agreed to submit a new application to ADP for Client A.
6. ADP did not receive the application.
7. Ms. Thibert did not follow up with either ADP or the client.
8. Client A repeatedly attempted to contact Ms. Thibert in order to follow up on her application, to obtain a copy of the initial ADP approval of funding that Client A had given Ms. Thibert and to obtain a copy of Client A's records for Client A.
9. Ms. Thibert did not return her calls. Neither did Ms. Thibert provide the information and documents after being contacted by the Manager, Investigations & Resolutions of the College, when the Manager communicated Client A's concerns to Ms. Thibert.
10. When Ms. Thibert closed her private practice in the fall of 2003, she made insufficient arrangements to communicate with Client A and follow up on the outstanding application to the ADP.
11. As a result, approval of Ms. Thibert's application to ADP was delayed for many months.

1. In July of 2002 Ms. Thibert was cautioned by the Complaints Committee in respect of her ADP assessment of a client for a powered wheelchair. The caution included the need to respond promptly to communications, the need to be complete and accurate in respect of ADP assessments and the need to ensure that the resulting reports convey sufficient information.
2. At that time, since Ms. Thibert denied receiving any benefit from a vendor. The Complaints Committee also advised Ms. Thibert to take a course in managing a small business to address concerns that she could not document that she had received payment from the client and not a vendor for the ADP assessment.
3. During 2002 and 2003 Ms. Thibert conducted numerous ADP assessments usually involving recommendations for powered scooters.
4. Relating to those assessments and recommendations, Ms. Thibert acted improperly as follows:
   1. conducting an inaccurate and incomplete assessment
   2. (withdrawn)
   3. in some cases not conducting a trial of the assistive device
   4. making recommendations for assistive devices (usually scooters) that were inappropriate and did not meet ADP criteria
   5. failing to follow up adequately on outstanding applications to ADP
   6. failing to follow up adequately upon delivery of the assistive device to the client
   7. failing to provide a list of registered vendors in the geographical area
   8. providing misleading information to clients and ADP about the eligibility of clients to assistive devices and
   9. participating in a system where the vendor directly or indirectly paid for the assessment costs, which is a conflict of interest.
   10. Ms. Thibert did not respond promptly or appropriately to communications from ADP, colleagues, clients and the College in respect of these matters and the resulting investigations.

• Section 28
  Engaging in conduct or performing an act relevant to the practice of the profession that having regard to all circumstances would be regarded as unprofessional.

1. The Discipline Committee orders that the certificate of registration of Ms. Thibert be suspended for a period of six months commencing on the date of this order.
2. The Discipline Panel orders that three months of the suspension shall, itself, be suspended on the condition that Ms. Thibert comply with the remainder of this order. The Registrar shall fix a date for the serving of the remainder of the suspension if any of the following terms, conditions or limitations have not been successfully completed by Ms. Thibert.
3. The Discipline Panel orders that it be a term, condition and limitation upon the certificate of registration of Ms. Thibert that Ms. Thibert not supervise other occupational therapists or students for a period of actual practice in Ontario of one year after the completion of the first three months of her suspension.
4. The Discipline Panel orders that it be a term, condition and limitation upon the certificate of registration of Ms. Thibert that Ms. Thibert ensure that performance review reports acceptable to the Registrar be delivered to the Registrar for the first twelve months of actual practice as an occupational therapy in Ontario following the first three months of her suspension. A performance report shall be provided after each six months of actual practice of Ms. Thibert. Each performance report shall contain a chart review by Ms. Thibert's supervisor (or an alternative person acceptable to the Registrar) of at least five randomly selected client charts. Each performance report shall also contain a section completed by an occupational therapist who attended with Ms. Thibert on at least two client visits during the six month period and which contains an assessment of Ms. Thibert's overall assessment process, clinical reasoning, documentation and follow-up with each client. If Ms. Thibert's supervisor and/or occupational therapist colleague is unable or unwilling to assist Ms. Thibert in fulfilling the obligations of this order the Registrar shall appoint an external reviewer to perform a similar review at Ms. Thibert's expense and Ms. Thibert shall cooperate fully with that review process.
5. The Discipline Panel orders that Ms. Thibert appear before a panel of the Discipline Committee to be reprimanded and that the fact of such a reprimand be recorded in the public portion of the register.
6. The Discipline Panel orders that Ms. Thibert pay a fine of $2,500 to the Minister of Finance and provide proof of having done so to the Registrar within one year of the date of this order.
7. The Discipline Panel orders that Ms. Thibert pay to the College $2,500 towards the costs and expenses of investigating and prosecuting this matter, payable in full within one year of the date of this order.
8. The Discipline Panel orders that each term, condition and limitation specified in this order be removed from Ms. Thibert's certificate of registration when it has been completed to the satisfaction of the Registrar.
9. Ms. Thibert also acknowledges in writing that under ss. 36(1) of the Regulated Health Professions Act the College can disclose information about this matter to other regulators.