A Richmond-based acupuncturist has been suspended for 18 months by his professional college and ordered to pay more than $17,000 over a variety of misconduct, including failing to prevent his employees from engaging in sex work and submitting bogus AI-generated patient records during the investigation. The College of Complementary Health Professionals of B.C. published notice of its decision against Yin-Jen Hsu earlier this year, saying at the time that penalties for the misconduct would be decided at a later hearing. The results of that hearing were published on the college’s website last week, and the CCHPBC discipline committee’s reasons for both decisions are now available to the public. In its conduct decision, the committee found that the college had proven all of its allegations against Hsu. It ruled that he had: The document sheds some light on the context for each of these findings. For instance, the conduct decision describes testimony from an undercover investigator the college hired to look into concerns that staff at Hsu’s Yoho Body Care Clinic were offering sexual services. The investigator recounted inquiring about a “happy ending” after receiving a massage and being told there was insufficient time left in the appointment. He said he was told to ask at the start of the appointment next time, and to pay an extra $50. The college alleged that the illicit sex work at Yoho occurred between 2017 and 2022, and Hsu admitted in his testimony that he suspected it may be occurring. He told the college of various attempts he made to stop it, including firing one employee he suspected of offering sexual services and posting notices warning employees they could be fired for sex work. The committee relied primarily on Hsu’s admissions, rather than the investigator’s testimony, in concluding that Hsu had inadequately supervised his staff to ensure they were not engaging in sex work. “The panel has determined that the respondent’s conduct constitutes professional misconduct,” the conduct decision reads. “This is not a case of an isolated lapse or of an ‘unwitting dupe.’ Under the code of ethics, the respondent was required to assume full responsibility for care he provided and for care delegated to persons under his supervision. The respondent knew that over a period of several years, the staff at the Yoho Clinic were providing sexual services to clients, yet he failed to take reasonable and timely steps to prevent or stop that activity. In particular, he failed to implement meaningful supervision, to investigate suspicions when they arose, or to maintain and enforce a zero-tolerance policy. His inaction permitted the conduct to continue and represents a marked departure from the standard of conduct expected of a registrant in the circumstances.” AI-generated records Another notable section of the conduct decision deals with Hsu’s failure to keep adequate patient records. According to the document, Hsu responded to the college’s citation in February of this year by sharing documents titled “patient’s clinic records.” Each of the records contained a single page for each appointment, and in most cases they contained identical descriptions of each appointment. “The respondent admitted during the discipline hearing that these records were generated using AI on a platform that did not exist at the time the records were purportedly created and that almost every entry was identical for each patient,” the conduct decision reads. “The respondent also admitted that he created these records after receiving the citation.” Other records that Hsu submitted the following day—referred to in the decision as the “Feb.20 records”—also raised the committee’s suspicions, as they did not appear to be genuine historical patient records, but rather more recently created ones. “These record-keeping failures are not minor deficiencies,” the decision reads, after concluding that the allegation of inadequate record keeping had been proven. “The respondent not only failed to meet the applicable standard of practice, but also acted dishonestly by creating the AI records and the Feb. 20 records and providing them to the college after being served with the citation.” ‘Significant penalty’ warranted In its penalty and costs decision, the committee recounts Hsu’s submissions about mitigating factors that he felt should lessen his penalty for his misconduct. These included his lack of a prior disciplinary record, his co-operation with the investigation, his efforts to correct the misconduct and his efforts to reflect and educate himself about professional standards. The committee largely rejected these claims, noting that—though Hsu had been licensed since 2014 without any prior disciplinary issues—the misconduct transpired over an extended period of time. It also rejected Hsu’s suggestion that he had co-operated with the investigation and had not concealed or covered up his misconduct. The committee cited the AI records issue in rejecting this assertion. Overall, the committee concluded that the case merited a “significant penalty” to maintain public confidence in the profession and its discipline process. In addition to suspending Hsu for 18 months, the committee ordered him to pay $17,500 toward the college’s investigation expenses. The penalty must be repaid within 18 months if Hsu wishes to be reinstated at the end of his suspension. The college also issued a formal reprimand to Hsu and ordered him to complete courses on “professional ethics and record-keeping” and “patient and clinic safety practices” as a condition of his eventual reinstatement. If and when he resumes practising, Hsu will be required “to submit to up to three practice inspections in two years” at his own expense. Hsu has 30 days from the date of the penalty and costs decision to file an appeal of the penalties imposed on him.
