A judge dealing with the case of a 53-year-old Navan-based medical doctor who carried out a fraud on the Hse by claiming payment for public patients she hadn’t treated has described her actions as “ a breach of trust”. He had difficulty dealing with the case because there was no explanation for her behaviour, Judge John Martin said.
He was speaking at Trim Circuit Court during the sentencing hearing for Dr Rionach Slattery, with an address at Tara and a member of Johnstown Group Practice in Navan who had pleaded guilty to deceiving the Hse to pay her for treating patients she had not treated. When she first came before Trim District Court in December 2021 she was charged with 39 counts of fraud amounting to €266,000 on dates between January 2012 and December 2015. When the case came before the circuit court today (Wed) Judge Martin was told that €12,000 was involved in nine counts against her but that defendant was pleading guilty to a total of €1,600.
Detective Garda Kathryn Christie told prosecuting barrister Carl Hanahoe that Dr Slattery was one of the partners at Johnstown Group Practice and a member of the General Medical Service scheme. The scheme involved public patients. Depending on the category of patients, the doctor’s practice would be given a payment for providing treatment to patients on an annual basis. There were also additional treatments which would attract other types of payments. Ranging from €20 to €56.29.
Following the receipt of treatment the patient on the way out of the practice would be asked to fill out a SPC form and sign it. The treatment involved had a particular code on the form. After a month the forms would be submitted for payment by the reimbursement section of the Hse on the following month. The practice would then get a remittance advice.
The primary care reimbursement service noted what they perceived to be irregularities and they identified a number of patients for the purpose of audit. These patients were written to and asked whether or not they had undergone certain procedures. As a result of verification procedures carried out by the Hse, the Gardai became involved, the detective said. The defendant had no previous convictions.
The detective confirmed to defending barrister Breffni Gordon that the defendant’s solicitor Mr O’Sullivan had written to the State solicitor stating that he would be in funds to the amount of €12,345.19 and had asked how that money could be transferred to the Hse. Garda Christie said that when she spoke to patients of Dr Slattery they had spoken very highly of her. She would come in to see patients after hour and give them a lot of time and she felt that was the reason why many patients declined to give her statements during her investigation. The court was told that defendant was the lone parent of four children.
Giving evidence of defendant’s behalf Dr Peter Wahlrab said he had got to know her many years ago when she was starting out as a GP. He had been a trainer on the GP training scheme from 1997 to 2000. Following completion of that scheme she had worked with him as a part-time locum. He had also worked with her on the Doctor on Call scheme. “There were no issues whatsoever in relation to her conduct during any of that time”, he said. He had also written a personal reference for her. He also knew that she was experiencing certain difficulties in her life and that she was addressing these over five years.
Describing the GP’s life, Mr Gordon said she had been educated at St Anne’s School in Navan and school at Rathcairn, also at Loreto Navan and later Galway University, qualifying as a GP in 2000. She had also taken six months off work to offer medical treatment to disadvantaged people in other countries.
Judge Martin said he found it difficult to understand why defendant had done what she had done. “I’m not aware were you at any stage in the grip of addiction issues, financial burdens or anything else…nothing. It’s also a difficult case in that I’m not sure what weight I would put on the fact that you are willing to repay the money that you obtained by deception. I’m not quite sure where the hardship is in repaying money you obtained by deception. That is right and proper that that money is returned to the Hse, to the taxpayers. All of us here contributed to the money you obtained by deception.”
By taking any further steps in the case he had decided to engage the services of the Probation Service It might offer some insight into why such a respected doctor, why such a highly-qualified person, why a single parents, mother of four children descended so low as to deceive her employer. Her actions were “a gross breach of trust”, he said. He put the case back to 27 th January next for a probation report.
