Image Credit: CFJC Today / File Photo

By Adam Campbell

INTERIOR HEALTH

Hospital Appeal Board upholds suspension of unvaccinated RIH doctor

Dec 4, 2023 | 2:11 PM

KAMLOOPS — A medical staff member at Royal Inland Hospital in Kamloops has had her suspension for not taking the COVID-19 vaccination upheld.

Dr. Theresa Szezepaniak, a member of Royal Inland Hospital’s (RIH) Department of Hospitalist Medicine since March of 2020, was suspended from her duties at the hospital on October 26, 2021, on the heels of an order made by the Provincial Health Officer (PHO) of British Columbia.

The order required all staff members of the Interior Health Authority (IH) to be either vaccinated against COVID-19 or provide a medical exemption in order to work in a hospital after October 25, 2021.

Subsequently, Dr. Szezepaniak failed to provide proof of a COVID-19 vaccination or a medical exemption, leading her to be suspended of her hospital privileges. According to the Hospital Appeal Board, Szezepaniak argued the order represented “an unjustified violation of her rights and freedoms under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.”

On November 16, 2021, IH stated Dr. Szezepaniak’s suspension and discharge could lead to a total cancellation of her medical staff appointment and hospital privileges, which happened on August 23, 2022.

Two and Out

PETERS: Facing caucus revolt, Justin Trudeau could learn from Joe Biden

11h ago

Looped In

LOOPED IN WITH NIKKI OMEN: October 24, 2024

13h ago

Question of the Week

Do you think a minority government could be a positive for British Columbia?

Oct 21, 2024

On October 18, 2022, Dr. Szezepaniak filed a Notice of Appeal under Section 46 of the Hospital Act to the Hospital Appeal Board.

After a year, on November 20, 2023, the Hospital Appeal Board decided Szezepaniak’s hospital privileges would remain suspended until eligible, and if ineligibility remains at the time of the annual review of her privileges, they will be cancelled.

The board stated IH did not commit any serious breaches of procedural fairness as a reason for its decision, as well as the appellant refusing to receive a COVID-19 vaccine knowing it would result in her inability to fulfill her service obligations.

Read the full decision here.