skip to content

Savic, Mile

CPSO#: 75873

MEMBER STATUS
Suspended as of 22 Aug 2018
CPSO REGISTRATION CLASS
Restricted as of 22 Nov 2008
Flag: Indicates a concern or additional information

Summary

Former Name: No Former Name

Gender: Male

Languages Spoken: Croatian, English, Serbian

Education:Univerziteta "Djuro Pucar Stari" U Banja, 1988

Practice Information

Primary Location of Practice
Practice Address Not Available

Specialties

Specialty Issued On Type
Family Medicine Effective: 08 Dec 2004 CFPC Specialist

Postgraduate Training

Please note: This information may not be a complete record of postgraduate training.



McMaster University, 01 Sep 2000 to 30 Jun 2001
PostGrad Yr 1 - Family Medicine

McMaster University, 01 Jul 2001 to 25 Jan 2002
PostGrad Yr 1 - Family Medicine

McMaster University, 26 Jan 2002 to 30 Jun 2002
PostGrad Yr 2 - Family Medicine

McMaster University, 01 Jul 2002 to 30 Jun 2003
PostGrad Yr 2 - Family Medicine

McMaster University, 01 Jul 2003 to 31 Dec 2003
PostGrad Yr 2 - Family Medicine

Registration History

Action Issue Date
First certificate of registration issued: Postgraduate Education Certificate Effective: 26 Jan 2001
Expired: Terms and conditions of certificate of registration Expiry: 31 Dec 2003
Subsequent certificate of registration Issued: Independent Practice Certificate Effective: 11 Feb 2005
Transfer of class of certificate to: Restricted certificate Effective: 22 Nov 2008
Terms and conditions imposed on certificate by Executive Committee Effective: 22 Nov 2008
Terms and conditions amended by member Effective: 22 Nov 2010
Terms and conditions amended by member Effective: 06 Nov 2013
Terms and conditions amended by Discipline Committee Effective: 19 Feb 2015
Suspension of registration imposed: Discipline Committee Effective: 19 Feb 2015
Suspension of registration removed Effective: 19 Apr 2015
Suspension of registration imposed: Inquiries, Complaints and Repo Effective: 22 Aug 2018

Practice Restrictions Flag: indicates a concern or additional information

Registration Status: Suspended     Effective From: 22 Aug 2018


Imposed By Effective Date Expiry Date Status
Discipline Committee Effective: 19 Feb 2015 Active

Previous Hearings Flag: indicates a concern or additional information

Committee: Discipline
Decision Date: 18 Dec 2018
Summary:

On December 18, 2018, the Discipline Committee found that Dr. Mile Savic committed 
an act of professional misconduct in that: he has contravened a term, condition or 
limitation on his certificate of registration; he has failed to maintain the standard of 
practice of the profession; and 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. 
      
Contravened a Term, Condition and Limitation on Certificate of Registration 
 
Dr. Savic signed an undertaking with the College in November 2010 in exchange for the 
College agreeing to withdraw a referral to the Discipline Committee and to terminate a 
College investigation. As part of the undertaking, Dr. Savic agreed to voluntarily 
relinquish his prescribing privileges in respect of narcotic drugs, narcotic preparations, 
controlled drugs and benzodiazepines, and other targeted substances.  
 
The College received information that Dr. Savic may have been in breach of his 
prescribing restriction and, in February 2016, it requested prescribing data from the 
Ministry’s Narcotics Monitoring System (NMS) for the period from January 2010 to that 
time. The NMS data that it provided identified instances in which Dr. Savic wrote or 
authorized prescriptions for clobazam (a benzodiazepine) for Patient C, Vyvanse (an 
amphetamine derivative and thus a controlled drug) for Patient D, phenobarbital (a 
controlled drug) for Patient E, and oxazepam (a benzodiazepine) for Patient F. Dr. Savic 
was specifically prohibited from prescribing each of these medications by the terms of his 
undertaking.  
 
The Committee found that Dr. Savic prescribed or authorized prescriptions for four drugs 
after he had entered into an undertaking with the College that prohibited him from doing 
so and therefore, breached his November 2010 undertaking with the College and 
contravened a term, limitation or condition on his certificate of registration. 
 
Failed to Maintain the Standard of Practice of the Profession 
 
a. Prescribing for Patients A and B 
 
Regarding prescribing to Patient A, the College-retained expert stated: 
 
-  Dr. Savic displayed a lack of skill in writing prescriptions in that his handwriting was 
   poor and there was a discrepancy between his intended dose and the actual dose 
   prescribed; 
-  Dr. Savic failed to meet the standard of practice in that he prescribed a third-line 
   antibiotic without any documented reason; 
-  Dr. Savic showed a lack of knowledge in respect of proper antibiotic dosing and 
   duration of treatment, and failed to meet the standard of practice by prescribing a 
   higher dose for a longer course than what was proposed in guidelines; 
-  Dr. Savic’s prescribing exposed Patient A to the possibility of receiving an ineffective 
   medication or an overdose of medication. 
                                    1 

 
The Committee accepted expert’s opinion that Dr. Savic’s choice of antibiotic was 
inappropriate in that Dr. Savic provided no documentation of why he chose a third-line 
antibiotic. The Committee therefore found that Dr. Savic failed to maintain the standard 
of practice of the profession in his prescribing to Patient A. 
 
Regarding Patient B, the College retained expert opined that Dr. Savic’s prescribing for 
Patient B displayed a lack of judgment in that he wrote ongoing prescriptions for 
gabapentin at escalating doses without any comprehensive assessment, management plan, 
or documented reasons for the choice of gabapentin or increasing doses. In these actions, 
Dr. Savic exposed Patient B to a risk of harm such as the use of inappropriate medication, 
interactions with other medications, and side effects such as drowsiness. The Committee 
accepted Dr. Law’s opinion, and found that Dr. Savic failed to maintain the standard of 
practice of the profession in his prescribing to Patient B. 
 
b. Ordering of Diagnostic Testing 
 
A second College-retained expert reviewed Dr. Savic’s ordering of diagnostic testing. 
The expert reviewed 25 patient charts and interviewed Dr. Savic. 
 
Holter Monitor Testing 
 
In reaching her opinion, the expert relied on her clinical experience, the ACC/AHA 
Guidelines for Ambulatory Electrocardiography, published in 1999, and the British 
Columbia Guidelines on Ambulatory ECG Monitoring (Holter Monitoring and Patient-
Activated Event Recorder), dated April 15, 2013. The expert pointed out that the 
ACC/AHA guidelines explicitly state that Holter monitor testing is not useful for routine 
screening of asymptomatic patients, or in the initial evaluation of chest pain patients who 
can exercise, and it may be harmful in some cases.  
 
In only one of 24 charts did Dr. Savic document any reason for ordering Holter monitor 
testing, and often there was no documentation that it had even been ordered until the 
patient returned for follow-up. In just six patient charts did the expert find any medical 
evidence that might represent an indication for Holter monitor testing. There  
was no supporting medical evidence or documented reason in the instances in which 
Dr. Savic ordered repeated Holter monitor testing. 
 
The Committee accepted the expert’s opinion that Dr. Savic displayed a lack of 
knowledge in that he ordered Holter monitor and other tests without appropriate 
indication or documentation. Dr. Savic ordered Holter monitor testing outside accepted 
guidelines for a large majority of the patients reviewed, not simply for a few patients 
whose circumstances might have been unusual. Further, there was virtually no 
documentation in Dr. Savic’s charts of any reasons that would support his clinical 
                                    2 

judgement in ordering Holter monitor testing for individual patients outside accepted 
guidelines. 
 
Ordering of Other Tests 
 
The expert opined that Dr. Savic’s ordering of EKGs and stress tests lacked any 
acceptable indication for the most part. As with Holter monitor testing, Dr. Savic stated to 
the expert that the typical reason he ordered the tests was screening.  
 
The expert expressed strong concern about a recurrent practice of Dr. Savic seeing 
patients for an EKG just days after a normal stress test. Dr. Savic acknowledged to her 
that he had no justification, and that such testing represents a duplication of service in 
that the patients would have had an EKG prior to their stress test.  
 
In respect of Dr. Savic’s ordering of tests, the expert described a “cascade” of 
unnecessary cardiac testing in a patient with no cardiac concerns and no cardiac findings 
on physical examination. 
 
The Committee found that Dr. Savic displayed a lack of knowledge and failed to maintain 
the standard of practice of the profession in his ordering of Holter monitor testing, EKGs, 
and stress tests without appropriate indication or documented justification.   
    
c. Record Keeping 
    
The expert opined that Dr. Savic’s documentation in relation to ordering Holter monitor 
testing fell significantly below the standard of practice. She noted that Dr. Savic 
displayed a lack of skill in terms of the completeness of his documented histories and 
examinations, and a lack of judgment in failing to document a proper evaluation in 
patients presenting with potentially significant symptoms. The Committee accepted her 
opinion that Dr. Savic failed to maintain the standard of practice in respect of his 
documentation in multiple charts reviewed. 
 
With respect to Patient A, there was no indication in the documented history and 
examination that Patient A’s symptoms were severe. With respect to Patient B, there was 
no documentation of history, examination, investigation or management plan over an 
extended period. The Committee found that Dr. Savic failed to maintain the standard of 
practice of the profession in his record-keeping for Patients A and B. 
 
d. Overall Management 
 
The Committee considered Dr. Savic’s overall management of patients. The College-
retained expert opined that Dr. Savic’s care of patients fell below the standard of practice 
of the profession in respect of additional aspects of his care. In general, the expert 
commented on Dr. Savic’s: 
                                    3 

 
-  failure to recognize and/or take appropriate action based on Holter monitor test results 
   (patients #14, #1A, #4A); 
-  failure to properly investigate patients with cardiac symptoms or findings (patients 
   #14, #3A, #4A, #6A). Among the patients for whom Dr. Savic ordered Holter 
   monitor testing, other cardiac testing would have been more appropriate for the few 
   who presented with cardiac symptoms; 
-  failure to properly investigate and/or follow up on patients who presented with non-
   cardiac symptoms (patients #5, #12, #1A, #2A); and 
-  failure to maintain an adequate referral system so that patients who Dr. Savic refers to 
   specialists were in fact seen within an appropriate time (patients #8 and #14). 
  
The expert opined that Dr. Savic’s knowledge was below standard and expressed “very 
serious concerns regarding the competence of [his] practice.” She identified “a marked 
and consistent lack of thoroughness in his case management, with frequent evidence of 
insufficient history, physical exam, inappropriate investigation, and incomplete follow 
up.”  
 
With respect to Dr. Savic’s care of Patient A,  Dr. Savic displayed a lack of knowledge 
and judgment and failed to meet the standard of practice in not obtaining a throat swab or 
rapid antigen testing, in assessing the severity of Patient A’s illness, and in his rationale 
for management. With respect to Dr. Savic’s care of Patient B, there was no proper 
history, examination, investigations or comprehensive management plan of a patient with 
chronic pain. Dr. Savic displayed a lack of knowledge, skill and judgment in his care of 
Patient B. 
 
The Committee found that Dr. Savic failed to maintain the standard of practice of the 
profession in his overall management of patients. 
 
Disgraceful, Dishonourable or Unprofessional Conduct  
 
Dr. Savic ordered unnecessary diagnostic testing without clinical indication or 
justification. In doing so, he exposed his patients to the stress, discomfort, inconvenience, 
and personal costs associated with medical testing. Further, he exposed patients to the 
risk that an important diagnosis would be missed because they did not get the appropriate 
test. He also exposed patients to the risk of receiving a false positive result to the Holter 
monitor test. A false positive result could lead to additional tests being recommended that 
were unnecessary. The additional tests would have their own risk of complications. 
Dr. Savic has violated the trust patients have that he as a medical professional will act 
with competence, integrity, and in his patients’ best interests. This conduct is disgraceful, 
dishonourable and unprofessional. 
 
Dr. Savic billed OHIP for services relating to the unnecessary testing he ordered. In doing 
so, he diminished the public funding that could otherwise have been directed to 
appropriate health care services. Thus, Dr. Savic has failed in his stewardship of our 
                                    4 

limited health care resources and his responsibilities to the profession and society at 
large. 
 
The Committee found that, in his ordering of unnecessary tests and billing for related 
services, Dr. Savic has engaged in conduct or an act or omission that would reasonably be 
regarded by the members of the profession as disgraceful, dishonourable and 
unprofessional. 
 
Penalty hearing to be scheduled.


Decision: Download Full Decision (PDF)
Hearing Date(s): August 14-15, 2018; penalty hearing date: June 3, 2019


Committee: Discipline
Decision Date: 19 Feb 2015
Summary:

On February 19, 2015, the Discipline Committee found that Dr. Savic committed an act of 
professional misconduct, in that he has failed to maintain the standard of practice of the 
profession, in that he had a conflict of interest, and that 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. Dr. Savic 
admitted the allegations. 
 
In 2008, allegations of professional misconduct against Dr. Savic were referred to the Discipline 
Committee and were withdrawn on the basis of an undertaking dated November 22, 2010. The 
terms of the undertaking, include a term requiring Dr. Savic to practice under the guidance of a 
Clinical Supervisor and a term that he abide by the recommendations of the Clinical Supervisor.   
 
Dr. X acted as Dr. Savic’s Clinical Supervisor from November 22, 2010 until approximately 
April 2012. Dr. X made recommendations to Dr. Savic for practice improvements. Dr. X advised 
the College, through his reports, that Dr. Savic was not complying with his recommendations.  
Dr. Savic admits that he failed to adequately implement the recommendations of Dr. X during 
the period that Dr. X acted as Clinical Supervisor and that he engaged in disgraceful, 
dishonourable and unprofessional conduct by breaching this term of his undertaking. 
 
Since April 2012, Dr. Y became and continues to act as Dr. Savic’s Clinical Supervisor. Dr. Y 
has reported to the College that Dr. Savic has implemented his recommendations. 
 
Following receipt of patient complaints and supervision reports from Dr. X, the College 
commenced an investigation into Dr. Savic’s practice. Dr. Z provided an independent opinion to 
the College regarding Dr. Savic’s care and treatment of patients. Dr. Z concluded that Dr. Savic 
did not meet the standard of practice of the profession that would be reasonably expected of a 
competent practitioner in his field of practice. Of the 25 charts reviewed, Dr. Z found 20 charts 
were deficient in documentation, in 12 charts Dr. Z was unable to determine if the standard of 
care was met due to documentation deficiencies and 7 charts had significant care concerns. The 
standard of care was met in 5 charts and partially met in 2 charts. 
 
Since approximately April 2012, Dr. Y has been Dr. Savic’s Clinical Supervisor. In his reports to 
the College, Dr. Y has reported that Dr. Savic now meets the standard of care, including with 
respect to documentation in charts. Dr. Y has advised the College that Dr. Savic is complying 
with his recommendations. 
 
Dr. Savic admits that he placed himself in a conflict of interest in that he ordered diagnostic 
testing for some of his patients, to be performed at his clinic, and failed to disclose his 
proprietary interest. As of March 1, 2013, Dr. Savic voluntarily ceased performing diagnostic 
testing at his clinic in circumstances where he had a conflict of interest. Dr. Savic signed an 
undertaking dated November 6, 2013, in which he agreed not to refer his patients for diagnostic 
testing in a facility in which he had a proprietary interest and agreed to refer his patients to 
another physician when there is a conflict of interest.  
 
The College and Dr. Savic agreed to additional facts in respect of penalty including that, in 2007, 
the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee of the College ordered Dr. Savic to be 
 cautioned in writing regarding the importance of performing and documenting a thorough 
 physical examination of patients. In 2008, the Chief of Hospital 1’s emergency department 
notified the College of concerns regarding Dr. Savic’s prescribing practice. Allegations of 
professional misconduct were referred to the Discipline Committee and withdrawn on the basis 
of an undertaking signed by Dr. Savic on November 22, 2010, one of the terms of which was the 
resignation of narcotics prescribing privileges. This term, condition and limitation remains on 
Dr. Savic’s certificate of registration. 
 
The Discipline Committee ordered and directed that: 
1.  the Registrar suspend Dr. Savic’s Certificate of Registration for a two month period 
    effective immediately.  
2.  the Registrar impose the following terms, conditions and limitations on Dr. Savic’s 
    Certificate of Registration: 
    i.  Dr. Savic, at his own expense, is to submit to a comprehensive practice assessment of 
        his practice, by an assessor selected by the College, immediately following the 
        completion of the individualized Educational Plan, which is now in progress, and which 
        is expected to be completed by July 31, 2015; 
    ii. Dr. Savic shall abide by those recommendations made by the Assessor which are 
        determined by the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee to be reasonable.  Dr. 
        Savic shall be permitted to make written submissions on his own behalf within 30 days 
        of receipt of the assessment to the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee.  The 
        Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee shall receive and review the assessor’s 
        recommendations and Dr. Savic’s written submissions and make a determination 
        regarding whether or not the recommendations, or any of them, are reasonable and if so, 
        whether they constitute terms, conditions or limitations on Dr. Savic’s practice, in 
        which case they will be included on the public register. 
   iii. Dr. Savic shall, at his own expense, successfully complete College-facilitated 
        instruction in Ethics no later than one (1) year from the date of this Order; 
   iv.  Dr. Savic shall not delegate to any other person any Controlled Act as that term is 
        defined in the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991; 
    v.  Dr. Savic shall not conduct or interpret Echocardiograms or exercise stress tests, nor 
        shall he permit his patients to undergo such testing at a facility owned by him, a 
        member of his family, or a corporation wholly, substantially, or actually owned by him 
        or a member of his family, and he shall promptly refer all patients requiring such testing 
        to another physician. 
   vi.  Dr. Savic shall keep a log (the “Prescribing Log”) of all prescriptions for Tremadol, 
        Tramacet, Tidural or any other synthetic narcotic (“Synthetic Narcotics”) in the form set 
        out at Appendix “A”, which will include at least the following information: 
            (i)  the date of the prescription; 
            (ii) the name of the patient with chart/file number; 
            (iii) the name of the medication prescribed; 
            (iv) the medication dosage; 
            (v)  the quantity prescribed; 
           (vi) the clinical indication for use and patient direction; and 
           (vii)  physician initials. 

  vii. Dr. Savic will ensure that his prescription pads are kept in a secure location at all times; 
       and 
 viii. Dr. Savic shall keep a copy of all prescriptions he writes for all Synthetic Narcotics, in 
       the corresponding patient chart. 

3. Dr. Savic appear before the panel to be reprimanded. 
4. Dr. Savic pay costs to the College in the amount of $4,460.00 within 60 days of the date of 
   this Order. 
 


Decision: Download Full Decision (PDF)
Appeal: No Appeal
Hearing Date(s): February 19,. 2015

Concerns Flag: indicates a concern or additional information

Source: ICR Committee
Active Date: May 8, 2019
Expiry Date:
Summary:
Caution-in-Person:

A summary of a decision of the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee in which the disposition includes a "caution-in-person" is required by the College by-laws to be posted on the register, along with a note if the decision has been appealed. A “caution-in-person” disposition requires the physician to attend at the College and be verbally cautioned by a panel of the Committee. 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 caution-in-person.
Download Full Document (PDF)


Source: ICR Committee
Active Date: May 3, 2017
Expiry Date:
Summary:
Caution-in-Person:

A summary of a decision of the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee in which the disposition includes a "caution-in-person" is required by the College by-laws to be posted on the register, along with a note if the decision has been appealed. A “caution-in-person” disposition requires the physician to attend at the College and be verbally cautioned by a panel of the Committee. 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 caution-in-person.
Download Full Document (PDF)