A B.C. pharmacist who sued for human rights violations has won a partial victory in court after initially being barred from practicing medicine because he intended to take an opioid replacement drug while on the job.
The pharmacist, who voluntarily quit his job in 2015, was prescribed Suboxone in 2016. This drug is used to suppress cravings and offset withdrawal symptoms to help people suffering from opioid addiction.
When he attempted to return to work in 2017, an independent medical examination by Dr. Mandy Manak determined that the pharmacist was suitable for the role of a “safety-sensitive” job such as a clinical pharmacist working with opioids. It was determined that there was no. If you continue to take Suboxone.
The pharmacist then filed a lawsuit in the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal, alleging that Manak and the B.C. Pharmacists Association discriminated against him on the basis of his disability, citing his opioid addiction. Pharmacist’s name not listed court decisionposted late last month.
He then received a second opinion from another addiction expert, Dr. Evan Wood, who testified that Suboxone had helped pharmacists recover from their addictions. Plaintiff was then able to find full-time work as a pharmacist and returned to the position she had held for over 15 years.
The pharmacist, who filed the lawsuit in 2019, is one of many recovering addicts who say it’s extremely difficult to return to work amid the stigma against illegal drug users.
He argued that the university’s decision not to reinstate Manak was discriminatory and that the university made comments and conclusions in his evaluation that were “based on negative stereotypes about people with substance use disorders.” did.
The court ultimately found that Manak’s decision not to invite the pharmacist to return to work was based on her experienced medical opinion and that the university’s decision not to reinstate him was based on established policy. Certified.
However, the court also found that some of Manak’s medical examination comments were discriminatory. The addiction doctor has now been ordered to pay the pharmacist more than $8,100 for his comments, including $7,500 in restitution for hurting the pharmacist’s dignity and feelings.
“Discriminatory comments state that some of the pharmacist’s everyday actions, such as health status, access to health care, or financial management, are questionable or unreliable; or It is implied.”
“They also made negative judgments about the pharmacist’s character that were not based on the facts presented by the pharmacist. [Manak]In my view, they were based on discriminatory stereotypes,” Froese added.
Suboxone made a ‘big change’
According to the court ruling, the pharmacist became addicted to opioids after being prescribed them for hip pain and migraines in 2009. He struggled with drug use for many years and at one point diverted oxycodone from a pharmacy for his own use before retiring. I started treatment in 2014.
He was recovering and planned to return to work the following year, but he relapsed. The pharmacist voluntarily suspended his license and returned to inpatient treatment.
In 2016, he was prescribed Suboxone, a drug used to curb opioid cravings and ultimately reduce opioid use.
The pharmacist reported that Suboxone had enabled him to live a normal life, telling the court: “I knew Suboxone was working well and would make a “big change” in my life, so I was extremely grateful.” I felt more positive.”
He then sought an independent medical examination from Mr. Manak, who is one of a list of university-certified experts who evaluate pharmacists as part of the regulatory university’s policy on discipline and return-to-work guidelines.
After the evaluation, the pharmacist: explained When her doctor asked her if she would feel like a kid in a candy store when she returned to work because she would be around so many drugs, she said, “hurt and shocked.” ” he felt.
In its ruling, the court also found that Manak called the pharmacist’s weight loss a “red flag” and the pharmacist’s regular exercise routine a “compulsive behavior.”
Froese wrote that these claims are based on discriminatory stereotypes that pharmacists are not honest about the reasons for their weight loss and “suspicions that they may still be using illegal drugs.”
During his cross-examination, Manak also seemed to question the pharmacist’s claim that he had been able to live off his savings while unemployed, saying, “That’s not true.”[d] The logic was that he could afford drugs, rehab, and daily living expenses.
“These comments strongly suggest that Dr. Manak believed that he was making money fraudulently, particularly through drug trafficking,” the court’s decision said.
Froese determined that the “kid in a candy store” comment did not constitute discriminatory treatment, but said Manak’s other comments did.
“Even if I dismiss some of the charges against Dr. Manak, there is no question in my mind that this pharmacist acted in good faith based on a sincere belief that he had been discriminated against. ‘, the judgment states.
CBC News has reached out to Manak and her lawyer for comment for this article.
