The College retained Dr. Mark Nassim to provide an opinion with respect to Dr. Hyde’s care and
treatment of patients. In his reports, Dr. Nassim opined that:
a) Dr. Hyde failed to maintain the standard of practice with respect to his medical record-
keeping in that:
i. His patient charts are not clearly written, are disorganized and often lack an easily
identifiable patient record;
ii. He fails to maintain chronological SOAP notes or other clearly delineated summaries
of patients’ investigations and medical condition(s), such as a Cumulative Patient
Profile, and does not include pertinent positive or negative findings, rationale for
ordering investigations or discussions with patients about the results;
iii. Dr. Hyde uses unprofessional language in his charts to describe his patients;
b) Dr. Hyde states that he practices “complex disease management” primarily involving
Myalgic Encephalomyelitis and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, which is outside the conventionally-
recognized scope of general or primary care practice;
c) Dr. Hyde takes diagnostic approaches that are not supported or corroborated by
conventional practice, and orders investigations the results of which are nonspecific and yield no
discernible constructive findings;
d) Dr. Hyde failed to follow currently accepted guidelines for the detection of prostate
cancer, including in ordering PSA testing;
e) Dr. Hyde lacked knowledge of opioid or benzodiazepine treatment contracts, despite
prescribing long-term benzodiazepines to patients;
f) Dr. Hyde lacked knowledge as to whether or not his electronic correspondence and
patient files are encrypted or stored in a secure fashion, despite the fact that he purported to
conduct an extensive telemedicine practice from Italy for several months each year.
Dr. Melvin Borins was retained to provide an opinion specifically with respect to Dr. Hyde’s
psychotherapy practice. In his reports, Dr. Borins opined that:
a) Dr. Hyde failed to record what is required of a practitioner providing psychotherapy, such as
a mental status exam, diagnosis, his psychotherapeutic treatment plans, his interventions and
the patient’s response to treatment;
b) In one case, where Dr. Hyde billed OHIP for providing psychotherapy 49 times between
2006 and 2016, Dr. Borins found only one adequate psychotherapy note;
c) In five cases, Dr. Borins could find no evidence in the charts that Dr. Hyde performed any
psychotherapy, despite Dr. Hyde’s numerous billings between 2005 and 2016.
d) In one case, Dr. Hyde prescribed addictive medications and opioids, including Dilaudid,
quietapine, clonazepam, and hydromorphone, without documenting the patient’s progress,
and how the psychotherapy he was providing was assisting the patient. He failed to properly
monitor the patient for risk of addiction, overdose and suicide. This displayed a lack of
judgment.
Dr. Hyde’s inappropriate care and treatment of his employee
Individual B was employed by Dr. Hyde. While Individual B was Dr. Hyde’s employee, Dr.
Hyde:
a) prescribed medication to Individual B on six occasions, including a prescription for a
tricyclic antidepressant; and
b) billed OHIP for providing treatment to Individual B on eight occasions, including for
psychotherapy on seven of those occasions, between April 2009 and August 2010.
Despite prescribing to Individual B, and billing OHIP for treating Individual B, Dr. Hyde did not
maintain a patient chart for Individual B.
Unprofessional communications, boundary violations, and conflict of interest
Dr. Hyde is the founder of a charitable foundation. Dr. Hyde wrote newsletters for his charitable
foundation, which he mailed to the patients in his medical practice.
In these newsletters, Dr. Hyde provided his personal opinions that the compensation of
physicians in Canada is inadequate, complained about the College’s requirements of physicians,
solicited patients to make donations to his charitable foundation, and disclosed inappropriate
personal information about himself and of his patients.
Patient A was a patient of Dr. Hyde’s between approximately 2008 and 2014. In appointments
with Patient A, Dr. Hyde disclosed his and other patients’ health information, questioned the
competency of other physicians, and complained about physicians’ remuneration and about the
College, including the College’s record-keeping requirements.
Block Fee for Uninsured Services
When Patient A first became a patient of Dr. Hyde’s, Dr. Hyde charged her $1,500, purportedly
as a block fee for services that are not covered by OHIP. In doing so, Dr. Hyde failed to comply
with the OHIP Schedule of Benefits, and the College’s policy on Block Fees and Uninsured
Services by:
a) improperly charging Patient A a block fee charged to cover the constituent elements of one
or more insured services;
b) failing to provide her with the alternative of paying for each service individually at the time
that it was provided; and
c) failing to offer the block fee in writing indicating the services that were and were not covered
by the block fee, and failed to provide her with a copy of the policy to ensure that she was
fully informed of her payment options.
Delay in Responding to Request for Patient Chart and Inappropriate Fee
In September 2013, Patient A’s lawyer wrote to Dr. Hyde requesting a copy of her chart, which
Patient A was required to produce for the purpose of motor vehicle litigation, enclosing a
direction authorizing Dr. Hyde to release it to the lawyer.
Patient A did not obtain any portion of her chart from Dr. Hyde until July 2014, despite having
made multiple requests for it both directly to Dr. Hyde and to his secretary, and despite attending
at Dr. Hyde’s office numerous times specifically for this purpose.
In July 2014, Dr. Hyde’s assistant informed Patient A that her chart was available to be picked
up, and that the fee would be $825. Dr. Hyde’s first invoice to Patient A, indicated that the $825
fee was for “medical-legal work”. When Patient A raised a concern with Dr. Hyde that his fee
was excessive, and that she had not requested that he do any medical-legal work, he provided a
revised invoice indicating that he had charged her $825 “to organize all patient data into a
comprehensive chart and copy the entire file at the request of [Patient A]’s lawyer”, and that this
had taken him four hours.
