DO cleared by GOC

A Welsh practitioner who pleaded that she had established her business in the hard times of a miner’s strike has been cleared of making false NHS claims and pocketing the cash.

Ceri Malpas, the Caerphilly-based dispensing optician, told a GOC disciplinary hearing that her business began when ‘surrounding opticians were charging more than people could afford’, and as a result she had as many as 100 patients a week, and 80 of those were NHS patients.

It was alleged that she made numerous false claims for payment from her local health authority for spectacles and repairs which had not been provided.

The allegations arose after following an ‘analytical review’ of forms sent by her to the former Gwent Health Authority, which led to a seizure of documents and computers by its regional head of counter fraud on February 11 2001.

Nick Leale for the Council said the forms related to patients who required assistance in paying, and 19 different patients were identified from May 1998 to January 2001.

‘In relation to each of the 19 patients, there were claims for supply or repair of spectacles when no such supply or repair took place.’

Anthony Cavaciuti, head of regional counter fraud for the Authority – now Powys Local Health Board – told the hearing he went to Ceri Malpas Opticians when documents and computers were seized.

The practitioner admitted that in 2000 she claimed for two pairs of spectacles when one pair was supplied but denied six allegations of falsely claiming supply to one patient and four to another.

Malpas told the hearing she had now established a new system of record keeping. ‘I was ashamed of those old records,’ she said. ‘It was caused because I was so busy.’

She admitted four of the 44 allegations, and two others were found proven. But the rest of the particulars of the allegation were not proven.

Panel chairman, David Pyle, said: ‘We consider this to be a clear case of professional misconduct, given the very poor and lamentable record keeping and administrative procedures involved.

‘However, given the extent of the evidence before us and your good character, we consider this to fall short of serious professional misconduct and therefore we find you not guilty.’