Surgeon disqualified for fraudulent overtime pay claims

In short:

A high-ranking Adelaide surgeon who fraudulently made claims for more than $50,000 on his time sheets cannot work as a health practitioner for a further two years, a tribunal has ruled.

James Ian Spark was a former head of vascular surgery at Flinders Medical Centre and previously pleaded guilty to multiple counts of deception for his conduct.

What's next?

Spark is prohibited from seeking registration for two more years and cannot provide any health service while banned.

An Adelaide surgeon who "abused and exploited his position of trust" by making more than $50,000 worth of fraudulent overtime pay claims will be banned from practising for about 4.5 years, a tribunal has ruled.

James Ian Spark was given a suspended 10-month jail term in April 2024 after pleading guilty to seven counts of deception and one count of attempted deception, for falsifying pay time sheets on occasions between July 2017 and April 2018.

Spark — a consultant who worked in both the public and private sector — was charged after an Independent Commissioner Against Corruption probe.

The offences related to his employment in the public health system, while he was a senior surgeon and Head of Unit for Vascular Surgery at Flinders Medical Centre (FMC), and included a claim for operating on a patient who did not exist.

The Medical Board of Australia referred a complaint about Spark's conduct to the South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal, which ruled Spark should not provide any health service for a further two years.

Spark's registration was initially suspended on April 12, 2024, a day after he was sentenced in the Adelaide Magistrates Court.

In a ruling published this week, the tribunal noted Spark's offending involved "completing and submitting time sheets to Shared Services SA", the state government's payroll service.

"He claimed that he had been called back out of hours to perform surgical procedures on patients and was thereby entitled to a monetary benefit in addition to his usual salary, in circumstances where the claimed call backs were dishonest," the ruling stated.

The tribunal noted that a second ground of complaint against Spark involved deceptive conduct which was withdrawn in the criminal proceedings, but "which are admitted in these proceedings".

According to the tribunal, Spark's offending — which involved "24 dishonest 'call back' claims" — was "ongoing and repeated", revealed "significant failings" in his character and professionalism, and brought the medical profession into disrepute.

"This demonstrates a lack of integrity in relation to his claims on the public purse,"the ruling stated.

"We find that the level of deceit involved in the [non-existent patient] entry is quite astounding as it carries with it a degree of arrogance by the respondent that the falsehood would not be uncovered by his employer's apparently unsophisticated payroll section."

'Professional misconduct'

The tribunal noted that at the time, Spark was earning "in the realm of $1 million annually after tax", and his offending "cannot reasonably be explained by financial need".

The offending amounted to "professional misconduct", the tribunal ruled.

It also noted Spark likely held such a "lofty position" at FMC "because he was highly respected, personally and professionally, by his employer and by his medical colleagues", and noted it had received 27 character references detailing his "care and concern for patient welfare".

"There is no doubt that, before this conduct, he was considered by those who knew and worked with him to be a man of good character," the tribunal noted.

"We do not doubt that he can practise medicine as a vascular surgeon in a highly competent and ethical manner.

"But the practice of medicine does not just relate to the technical aspects of undertaking surgery and dealing with patients."

The tribunal also noted that Spark agreed the sanctions imposed should include a reprimand, the cancellation of his registration and that he pay the costs of the proceedings.

However, Spark had argued he should be able to immediately re-apply for registration.

He further argued "adverse media reporting" of the criminal proceedings had a "significant impact" upon him.

The tribunal found there was "little evidence" Spark had demonstrated a meaningful level of insight and remorse.

It ruled a two-year ban on re-registering should be imposed, noting that it would mean Spark would not practice for about 4.5 years in total before he could apply to be re-registered.