skip to content

Hanson, Paul Russell

CPSO#: 65864

MEMBER STATUS
Revoked: Discipline Committee as of 28 Jan 2021
EXPIRY DATE
28 Jan 2021
CPSO REGISTRATION CLASS
Restricted as of 25 May 2020

Summary

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Vestibulum ac diam sit amet quam vehicula elementum sed sit amet dui. Vivamus suscipit tortor eget felis porttitor volutpat. Curabitur non nulla sit amet nisl tempus convallis quis ac lectus. Curabitur aliquet quam id dui posuere blandit. Vivamus suscipit tortor eget felis porttitor volutpat. Curabitur arcu erat, accumsan id imperdiet et, porttitor at sem. Vestibulum ac diam sit amet quam vehicula elementum sed sit amet dui. Donec sollicitudin molestie malesuada. Pellentesque in ipsum id orci porta dapibus.

Former Name: No Former Name

Gender: Male

Languages Spoken: English, Polish

Education:Academy of Medicine, Cracow, 1985

Practice Information

Primary Location of Practice
Practice Address Not Available

Professional Corporation Information


Corporation Name: Dr. Paul Hanson Medicine Professional Corporation
Certificate of Authorization Status: Inactive: Jul 13 2018

Medical Records Location

Instructions: Patients may contact 519-966-0089 for details on how to obtain their medical records
Date Received: 31 Mar 2021

Specialties

Specialty Issued On Type
No Speciality Reported

Registration History

Action Issue Date
First certificate of registration issued: Independent Practice Certificate Effective: 04 Aug 1992
Suspension of registration imposed: Discipline Committee Effective: 27 Oct 2001
Suspension of registration removed Effective: 27 Jan 2002
Transfer of class of certificate to: Restricted certificate Effective: 19 Mar 2004
Terms and conditions imposed on certificate by member Effective: 19 Mar 2004
Terms and conditions amended by member Effective: 22 Feb 2007
Terms and conditions amended by member Effective: 16 Apr 2009
Terms and conditions amended by member Effective: 28 Jul 2010
Terms and conditions amended by member Effective: 21 Mar 2011
Terms and conditions amended by member Effective: 22 Feb 2018
Terms and conditions amended by member Effective: 27 Mar 2020
Revoked: Discipline Committee. Effective: 08 May 2020
Subsequent certificate of registration issued: Restricted certificate Effective: 25 May 2020
Terms and conditions amended by Registration Committee Effective: 16 Jun 2020
Revoked: Discipline Committee. Effective: 28 Jan 2021

Previous Hearings

Committee: Discipline
Decision Date: 08 May 2020
Summary:

On February 12, 2020, the Discipline Committee (the “Committee”) of the College of 
Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario held a hearing on specified allegations regarding 
Dr. Paul Russell Hanson (“Dr. Hanson”), and reserved its decision.  
  
 In April 2020, the Committee heard Dr. Hanson’s motion to re-open the penalty phase of 
 the hearing in order that Dr. Hanson could tender into evidence the Reassessment 
 Report of Dr. Mamdouh Andrawis dated February 29, 2020 (the “Andrawis 
 Reassessment Report”), and permitting the parties to make submissions regarding the 
Andrawis Reassessment Report. By order dated April 6, 2020, the Committee granted 
the relief sought and subsequent received and considered the Andrawis Reassessment 
Report and the parties’ further submissions. 
  
 On May 8, 2020, the Committee released its finding that Dr. Hanson committed an act 
 of professional misconduct in that he  
  
    -  failed to maintain the standard of practice of the profession 

    -  has engaged in conduct or 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 

   -  has been found guilty of an offence that is relevant to his suitability to practise. 

In its decision, the Committee also set out its penalty and costs order.  
 
Dr. Hanson is 61 years old. He first received his certificate of registration authorizing 
independent practice from the College in 1992, and is a general practitioner with offices 
in Windsor and Chatham, Ontario. 
 
File #7212620 
 
In 2010, Dr. Hanson was charged with having committed fraud over $5,000, contrary to 
s. 380(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada. It was alleged that Dr. Hanson had defrauded 
OHIP and the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care (“MOHLTC”) by billing OHIP for 
 insured services not provided. On August 26, 2010, Dr. Hanson was interviewed by 
 police.  
  
 On May 9, 2013, in the Ontario Court of Justice, the criminal charge of fraud over $5,000 
 was withdrawn, after Dr. Hanson pleaded guilty to an offence under s. 37.1(1) of the 
 Health Insurance Act for failing to maintain records as may be necessary to establish 
 whether he provided an insured service to a person between January 1, 2000 and 
 February 4, 2009. Upon being convicted of the s. 37.1(1) offence, Dr. Hanson was 
 ordered to pay $2,500 in restitution and a $7,500 fine.  
  
                                      1 

At the guilty plea to the s. 37.1(1) offence on May 9, 2013, the following facts were 
agreed: 
      -The investigation began with the MOHLTC providing information to the OPP 
      Anti-Rackets Health Fraud Investigation Team in September, 2007. The 
      MOHLTC’s focus was billing combinations submitted by Dr. Hanson between 
      January 2000 and February 2008 with respect to four separate insured services 
      for the same patient on the same service date: general assessments, 
      sigmoidoscopies, pulmonary function tests, and EKGs. 
 
      -With respect to sigmoidoscopies, numerous patients interviewed by police 
      stated they did not have the sigmoidoscopy procedure for which Dr. Hanson had 
      billed. For the patients who were interviewed, the OPP determined that the total 
      for services not rendered but billed by Dr. Hanson totaled $5,048. When Dr. 
      Hanson was interviewed by police, he stated that when he performed 
      sigmoidoscopies, it was rarely necessary for him to insufflate (activate the air 
      pump on the sigmoidoscope). This was an acknowledgment that he did not 
      necessarily complete the full procedure that was required. 
 
      -A preliminary hearing was conducted. Approximately 40 witnesses testified. 
      Many witnesses testified that they did have a sigmoidoscopy, which was not in 
      accordance with what they had told the OPP or what they had submitted to the 
      OHIP through verification letters. Many of the patients who had originally 
      indicated that they had not received sigmoidoscopies were misled by the 
      erroneous indication on the questionnaires that a sigmoidoscopy is “a procedure 
      whereby a laxative is required”. Others at the preliminary hearing testified that 
      they did have rectal exams, but they could not testify with any certainty as to 
      whether it was a digital exam, a sigmoidoscopy or simply any other type of rectal 
      examination, and the evidence was tenuous as to whether the procedure was 
      performed. Lastly, there were witnesses who testified unequivocally that no such 
      rectal exam had been rendered by Dr. Hanson. 
 
      -It was determined (by the Crown) after a thorough analysis of the witness 
      testimony from the preliminary hearing that, on the basis of what could be proven 
      to a criminal standard, Dr. Hanson owed approximately $2,500 to MOHLTC in 
      restitution for services billed but not rendered.)  
       
      -As it pertains to sigmoidoscopy procedures, Dr. Hanson did not maintain 
      accurate patient records necessary to establish whether or not he in fact had 
      performed the insured service to the person. 
 
File #7214569 
 
In light of the issues raised in the matter resolved in the Ontario Court of Justice on May 
9, 2013, College investigators were appointed to investigate whether Dr. Hanson, in his 
                                      2 

general medicine practice, engaged in professional misconduct or is incompetent, with 
a particular focus on general assessments, sigmoidoscopies, pulmonary function tests, 
and EKGs. 
 
Two medical inspectors were retained to review 30 of Dr Hanson’s patient charts (15 
charts from the 2000 to February 2008 timeframe, and 15 charts after February 2008): 
Dr. Jerome Jadd, a family physician, and Dr. Jonathan Love, an internist. 
 
Dr. Hanson failed to meet the standard of practice for the profession for record-keeping 
as set out in the report of Dr. Jadd, whose conclusions included the following: 
             
     -Dr. Hanson’s general assessments often consisted of sparse functional 
     inquiries; and often lacked many details such as a review of current problems, 
     medications, therapeutic plans, and responses to treatment; in one patient, 
     recent significant medical events were not reviewed. Dr. Hanson also performed 
     general assessments too soon after a patient’s last general assessment, without 
     documented justification; 
             
     -Some Cumulative Patient Profiles were not up to date and lacked information; 
             
     -Some of Dr. Hanson’s progress notes did not reflect patients’ ongoing 
     management, and it was often difficult to interpret or follow the patient’s story 
     without reference to consultants’ notes and imaging results. As a result, it can be 
     difficult to appreciate a patients’ significant ongoing issues; 
      
     -Dr. Hanson documented using acronyms, the meaning of which were not always 
     clear; 
      
     -In documenting prescriptions, Dr. Hanson failed to record the dose, quantity and 
     potential side effects of a narcotic and NSAID; failed to record the name of the 
     medication prescribed; failed to document a discussion regarding overdose 
     potential and other risks in prescribing Elavil, an antidepressant; Dr. Hanson 
     prescribed Champix for smoking cessation to a patient diagnosed with 
     depression, without recording the potential for exacerbation of depression with 
     this medication; 
      
     -Some of Dr. Hanson’s notes had inconsistencies, including recording a family 
     history of colon cancer as “no” when it was also documented that the patient’s 
     brother had colon cancer; Dr. Hanson recorded that a patient had been a six pack 
     year smoker and quit three years earlier on the CPP, and recorded “Smoker N 
     prev” in the note of a functional inquiry; 
             
                                       3 

       -Dr. Hanson failed to record follow-up on test results received (such as a head 
       CT) or on conditions arising at prior visits (such as leg swelling/cellulitis treated 
       in the ER); and 
        
       -Some of Dr. Hanson’s psychosocial notes were too sparse. 
        
 Dr. Hanson failed to meet the standard of practice for the profession for patient care as 
 set out in the report of Dr. Jadd, whose conclusions included the following: 
  
       -Performing pulmonary function tests without indication in 6 patients, and 
       incomplete charts displaying a lack of indication in 3 patients; 
        
       -Performing EKGs without indication in 4 patients, and incomplete charts 
       displaying a lack of indication in 2 patients; 
        
       -Interpreting pulmonary function tests in 19 charts which lacked written 
       pulmonary function interpretation and related documentation; and 
        
       -Interpreting EKGs in 18 charts as these lacked written interpretation of the tests 
       and related documentation of same. 
  
 Dr. Hanson displayed a lack of judgment as set out in the reports of Dr. Jadd and Dr. 
 Love, whose conclusions in this regard included the following: 
  
       -Performing general assessments, EKGs, spirometry without indication; 
       -Performing diabetes checks on two patients when the blood work did not 
       support a diagnosis of diabetes. 
       -Failing to adequately document a patient’s complaint of new onset chest pain 
       with left arm numbness. His history-taking, examination, assessment and plan 
       did not meet the standards expected. The potential seriousness of the complaint 
       did not appear to have been appreciated by Dr. Hanson. 
       -Inconsistency in the medical record of the patient’s complaint of shortness of 
       breath but active lifestyle including exercising by bike 7 times a week and normal 
       respiratory systems on review. 
       -Prescribing an NSAID to a patient despite cautionary comments made by a 
       nephrologist and treated this same patient who has chronic severe kidney 
       disease for a urinary tract infection twice without sending urine for culture and 
       sensitivity. 
       
Dr. Hanson failed to meet the standard of practice of the profession with respect to 
patient care as set out in the report of Dr. Love, whose conclusions in this regard 
included the following: 
  
                                      4 

      -Dr. Hanson failed to meet the standard of care with respect to documenting 
      sigmoidoscopies in 17 of 30 charts, and demonstrated a lack of skill in 
      documentation in 2 charts; 
      -Dr. Hanson lacked knowledge and judgement in 13 charts in the area of medical 
      record keeping and standard terminology; failure to workup rectal bleeding in 
      patients over 50; proper use of fecal occult blood testing; and management in 
      colo-rectal polyps; 
      -Performing sigmoidoscopies without indication in 7 patients, thereby subjecting 
      these patients to unnecessary intrusive testing; 
      -There was a risk of harm in 9 patients as it pertains to rigid sigmoidoscopies 
      only regarding the potential risk of a missed lesion when not properly referred for 
      colonoscopy, and a delay in treatment. 
 
File #99430 
 
In September 2015, Ms A complained to the College about an appointment her 
daughter, Patient B, had had at Dr. Hanson’s Chatham office on August 27, 2015 for the 
administration of a vaccine. In her complaint, Ms A stated the vaccine had been 
administered by a female staff member, and not Dr. Hanson. 
 
In responding to this complaint, Dr. Hanson provided inconsistent, inaccurate and 
misleading information to the College regarding: 
      - The identity of the person who administered the vaccine; and 
      - The charting with respect to Patient B’s appointment. 
 
In his responses to the College, Dr. Hanson claimed that he had administered the 
vaccine to Patient B. In fact, the vaccine was administered by his receptionist, Emily 
Lindsay. 
 
Dr. Hanson provided the College with a typewritten patient encounter note for Patient 
B’s appointment. In his initial responses to the College, Dr. Hanson claimed that he had 
made this patient encounter note contemporaneously, but that he had done so outside 
of the Electronic Medical Record (“EMR”), and that he arranged for his receptionist to 
scan it into EMR.  Initially, Dr. Hanson advised the College that he was unable to recall 
the specific circumstances regarding why he had created the chart note outside of the 
EMR. Finally, in a subsequent response to the, Dr. Hanson admitted that the note had 
not been made contemporaneously, and that he had created it after he received notice 
of Ms A’s complaint when he realized that there was no patient encounter note for that 
visit. Further, he finally acknowledged that the note did not originate from the EMR, and 
had never been scanned into the EMR. 
 
During the College investigation, the receptionist advised the College that Dr. Hanson 
approached her and asked her “take responsibility for the mistake with the chart note”. 
 
                                       5 

 PART II - ADMISSION 
  
 Dr. Hanson admits the facts at paragraphs 1 to 16 above, and admits that, based on 
 these facts, he engaged in professional misconduct: 
       -under paragraph 1(1)2 of Ontario Regulation 856/93 made under the Medicine 
       Act, 1991 (“O. Reg. 856/83”), in that he has failed to maintain the standard of 
       practice of the profession; 
        
       -under paragraph 1(1)33 of O. Reg. 856/83, in that he has engaged in conduct or 
       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; and 
        
       -under clause 51(1)(a) of the Health Professions Procedural Code which is 
       Schedule 2 to the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991, S.O. 1991, c.18, in that 
       he has been found guilty of an offence that is relevant to his suitability to 
       practise. 
  
 PENALTY AND COSTS 
 
On May 8, 2020, the Discipline Committee ordered:  
  
 - Dr. Hanson is to attend before the panel to be reprimanded 
- The Registrar is to revoke Dr. Hanson’s certificate of registration, effective immediately 
 - Dr. Hanson is to pay costs to the College in the amount of $6,000.00 within 30 days of 
the date of this Order. 
  
 APPEAL 
  
 On May 25, 2020, Dr. Hanson appealed the Discipline Committee’s decision on penalty 
 to the Divisional Court. 
  
 DIVISIONAL COURT DECISION  

 On January 27, 2021, the Divisional Court released a decision dismissing Dr. Hanson’s 
 appeal from the Discipline Committee’s May 2020 decision.  The effect of the Divisional 
 Court’s decision is that the Discipline Committee’s May 8, 2020 penalty order is in effect.


Decision: Download Full Decision (PDF)
Hearing Date(s): Feb 12, 2020

 

Committee: Discipline
Decision Date: 11 May 2009
Summary:

 On May 11, 2009, the Discipline Committee found Dr. Hanson to have committed acts of professional 
 misconduct in that he failed to maintain the standard of practice of the profession; and in that 
 he engaged in conduct or 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.

The Discipline Committee directs that:

1. 	Dr. Hanson appear 
 before it to be reprimanded, with the fact of the reprimand recorded on the register.

2. 	Dr. 
 Hanson pay costs to the College in the amount of $3650 within thirty (30) days from the date of 
 this Order.

3. 	The results of this proceeding to be included in the register.


Decision: Download Full Decision (PDF)
Appeal: No Appeal
Hearing Date(s): May 11, 2009

 

Committee: Discipline
Decision Date: 27 Aug 2001
Summary:

 On August 27, 2001, the Discipline Committee accepted Dr. Hanson(s plea of guilty and found him 
 guilty of professional misconduct in that he falsified a record relating to his practice.  The 
 Committee ordered the following penalty:

1.	The Discipline Committee orders that Dr. Hanson 
 attend before it to be reprimanded, 	with the fact of the reprimand to be recorded on the 
 Register.

2.	The Discipline Committee directs the Registrar to suspend Dr. Hanson(s certificate 
 of 	registration for a period of six months, three months of which be suspended if Dr. Hanson 
 	completes a course in ethics approved by the Registrar no later than March 1, 2002, all 	costs of 
 the course to be borne by Dr. Hanson.

3.	The Discipline Committee orders that the suspension of 
 Dr. Hanson(s certificate of 	registration commence on or before October 29, 2001.

4.	The 
 Discipline Committee orders that Dr. Hanson pay costs to the College in the amount 	of $2,500.00 
 by December 31, 2001.


Decision: Download Full Decision (PDF)
Appeal: No Appeal
Hearing Date(s): Aug 27, 2001

Concerns

Source: Compliance and Monitoring Department
Active Date: June 18, 2020
Expiry Date:
Summary:
This matter has been appealed to HPARB by the subject physician.

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.
Download Full Document (PDF)

 

Source: Member
Active Date: June 16, 2020
Expiry Date:
Summary:
Summary of the Undertaking given by Dr. Paul Russell Hanson to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, effective June 16, 2020:

On May 8, 2020, the Discipline Committee of the College ordered Dr. Hanson’s certificate of registration be revoked. Dr. Hanson is appealing the Discipline Committee’s order on penalty to the Divisional Court, and the penalty is stayed pending appeal.

While the appeal is pending, Dr. Hanson shall not order or conduct sigmoidoscopies, electrocardiograms (“EKGs”), and pulmonary function tests (also referred to as “spirometry”).

Dr. Hanson has agreed to an expedited appeal.

 

Source: Compliance and Monitoring Department
Active Date: January 17, 2018
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: Compliance and Monitoring Department
Active Date: July 20, 2016
Expiry Date:
Summary:
Caution-in-Person and Specified Continuing Education and Remediation Program

A summary of a decision of the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (“ICRC”) in which the disposition includes a "caution-in-person" or a Specified Continuing Education and Remediation Program (“SCERP”) 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 ICRC. A SCERP is one of the dispositions that the College’s ICRC may make in connection with a matter before it, and this disposition requires the member to complete an education and remediation program specified for the member. A note will also be posted when all the elements of the SCERP have been completed.

Summaries will be removed from the register if the decision is overturned on appeal or review. This posting 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.

As of March 20, 2018, Dr. Paul Hanson completed the requirements of his SCERP.

See PDF for the summary of a decision made against this member in which the disposition includes a Caution-in-Person and a SCERP:

Note: This matter has been confirmed by HPARB.
Download Full Document (PDF)