College of





of British Columbia

Jun Bao (FA03244)

Date of action: May 29, 2012

Description of action taken

On June 1, 2011, the CTCMA initiated an investigation under s. 33 of the Health Professions Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 183 (the "Act") in response to information alleging medical receipts were being issued for acupuncture treatments that were not being provided at a clinic located on Anderson Road in Richmond, B.C. A College Inspector attended the clinic posing as a patient for a pre-arranged acupuncture treatment. He was informed by a female at the clinic that no one was available to provide an acupuncture treatment but she could provide him with a massage, which the Inspector declined. He scheduled an acupuncture treatment for the following day. The next day, the Inspector received an acupuncture treatment from the Registrant. During the treatment, the Registrant checked in on the Inspector twice. A female then removed the needles explaining that the Registrant had left the premises. During a subsequent interview with the College, the Registrant initially denied providing treatment to patients at the Anderson Road clinic but later confirmed that he did provide treatment to patients at that clinic on an 'on-call' basis. When the Registrar requested the clinic records for patients treated the previous week, the Registrant denied providing any treatments the previous week. The Registrar advised the Registrant that the Inquiry Committee had received a report from the Inspector stating that he had received an acupuncture treatment from the Registrant. Shortly thereafter, the Registrant presented the Registrar with the Inspector.s clinic record. When the Registrar asked if the Inspector.s clinical record was the original or if he generated the record while she waited, he initially stated it was the original record but confirmed, after further questioning, that he generated the record. The clinical record indicated that the Registrant provided treatment to the Inspector on June 20, 2011 when in fact the Inspector had received treatment on June 21, 2012. Following the investigation, the Inquiry Committee determined under s. 33(6)(c) of the Act to seek a consent order under s. 36 of the Act on terms that would ensure that the Registrant did not repeat the conduct.

Reasons for action taken

The Inquiry Committee was concerned that:

  1. the Registrant ought to have established that the requirements listed in s. 6(c)(i) of the CTCMA Code of Ethics were met by the clinic before he agreed to provide acupuncture services there;
  2. the Registrant failed to complete the acupuncture treatment for the Inspector, leaving the clinic before the needles were removed and leaving a non-registrant to remove the needles without supervision;
  3. the Registrant failed to maintain a complete clinical record including documented informed consent; and
  4. the Registrant attempted to obstruct the Inquiry Committee.s investigation by providing conflicting and false information to the Registrar and fabricating a clinical record.