Fake calls, fake patients, and a fake surgery: Vascular surgeon suspended for 2 years

The medical practitioner who claimed over $50,000 for falsified services has been found guilty of professional misconduct by the South Australian workplace tribunal, further to earlier criminal findings.

The South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal has found that James Ian Spark falsified timesheets and made claims of a surgery that didn’t occur while employed as a vascular surgeon in the public health system.

The case was first heard in the Adelaide Magistrates Court, where the respondent was convicted of dishonestly obtaining a benefit by deception, resulting in seven criminal charges for deception and one count of attempt to deceive contrary to the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935, and was given a suspended 10-month jail term.

The criminal proceedings were launched in 2021 following an investigation by the Independent Commissioner Against Corruption (ICAC), which uncovered alleged timesheet falsification and inaccurate claims of being recalled for a surgery.

The criminal charge was the basis of ground one, with regard to administrative tribunal proceedings filed by the Medical Board of Australia.

The tribunal determined the surgeon “dishonestly obtained a financial benefit for himself by deceiving Shared Services SA and that on one occasion he attempted to obtain such a benefit through deception” between 6 July 2017 and 27 April 2018.

During this period, there were 24 dishonest claims of being recalled across eight timesheets.

The board also alleged fraudulent conduct relating to two instances of deceptive conduct – these allegations were withdrawn in the criminal proceedings but admitted to during tribunal proceedings, forming ground two of the complainant’s allegations.

Both grounds were considered when deciding disciplinary actions.

At the time of the conduct, the surgeon allegedly earned around $1 million annually after tax, which the tribunal said made the “motivation for Dr Spark’s conduct most perplexing”.

The board sought a reprimand, cancellation of registration, disqualification, and a ban on applying for reinstatement for two years, which the respondent partially agreed with, in addition to covering legal costs, but proposed that he not be disqualified from applying for registration and no prohibition period from applying for reinstatement.

The tribunal characterised the conduct as “substantially below the standard reasonably expected of a registered health practitioner and is conduct which is inconsistent with the respondent being a fit and proper person to hold registration as a health practitioner”.

It was further noted by the tribunal that it held significant reservations about the respondent’s alleged remorse, and that there remained a possibility that the conduct would be repeated without added protections.

The tribunal said: “It is appropriate that the sanction imposed serve the objective of bringing home the seriousness of the misconduct, and of deterring the respondent or other practitioners from engaging in like conduct in the future.”

The following orders were made: the respondent is reprimanded, the respondent’s registration as a registered health practitioner is cancelled, the respondent is disqualified from applying for registration as a registered health practitioner, the respondent may not apply for a reinstatement order for two years, the respondent is prohibited from providing health services until obtaining registration, and the respondent is to pay the board’s legal costs.

Citation: Medical Board of Australia v Spark [2026] SACAT 100

Want to see more stories from trusted news sources?
Make HR Leader a preferred news source on Google.