A nurse who abused her position of trust to get a substantial inheritance from an elderly patient has been struck off. Anita George was a registered nurse at Singleton Hospital’s chemotherapy department in Swansea when she became involved with Patient A and his wife (referred to as Person A) around 2012 and moved into their bedsit property, a professional standards hearing was told.
During the four years before Patient A died in 2016 George took gifts from him, including a car, and cared for him knowing she stood to gain his house, the Nursing and Midwifery Council panel heard. Finding a series of charges against her proved the committee found George guilty of misconduct and struck her off the nursing register.
In a report of the findings, published by the NMC online the panel told George: “Patient A and Person A were vulnerable, and there is clear evidence from witnesses and from yourself that they placed their trust in you, as did some members of their family. The panel was of the view that you deliberately created conditions that allowed you to abuse the trustplaced in you, and that you did that in order to gain an inheritance and other gifts” – the report goes on to suggest the inheritance was a house. You can get more story updates straight to your inbox by subscribing to our newsletters here
READ MORE: Change is coming, says NHS Wales boss, as health services struggle
READ MORE: Prince Charles Hospital, Merthyr, shuts stroke service amid ‘severe’ staff shortage
The report of the hearing, held on dates between September and December 6, and now published online, adds that Patient A and Person A’s family alleged “an inappropriate financial relationship between George and Patient A and that she was allegedly “dismissive and unkind” to his wife. The report went on: “You (George) were named as a beneficiary of Patient A’s will after his passing, and the family allege that you manipulated Patient A who was vulnerable and elderly, and allegedly accepted substantive gifts from him.”
It goes on: “The panel also took into account that you admitted that you knew that the house was being built for you, and yet, it had not been put in your name prior to Patient A’s death. The panel was therefore surprised when you indicated that you did not know this would be bequeathed to you.
Hearing the case the panel took evidence from witnesses, called on behalf of the NMC, including Patient A’s accountant, his son, daughter grandson and son in law and the senior matron in cancer services at Swansea Bay Health Board at the time of the allegations.
The panel said it also took into account that evidence from one witness that “she knew you were to receive the house, which suggested that it was not being kept a complete secret by Patient A”. The panel also took account of a letter from Parry Solicitors’ “that confirms that you knew you were a beneficiary of Patient A’s estate.”.”
The report goes on to add that : “The panel was of the view that you (George) deliberately created conditions that allowed you to abuse the trust placed in you, and that you did that in order to gain an inheritance and other gifts.”
George, who was said to earn around £19,000 a year as a nurse at Singleton, “made some admissions” including entering into a tenancy agreement with Patient A’s business and accepting the gift of a car, but not that this breached professional boundaries. She also admitted staying in Patient A’s property without paying rent, but only relating to the second property for a period of six months and not that this breached professional boundaries.
Announcing its decision the panel said: “In determining misconduct in charge 1, the panel considered that you failed to maintain professional boundaries with Patient A, who was elderly and vulnerable, and whose adult children were all absent. Your conduct only stopped when Patient A died.”
It added that the misconduct is “very serious” as George “took advantage of Patient A and Person A’s vulnerability” and “did not take steps to clarify” her position as a beneficiary of Patient A’s will, or the financial gifts. During a formal investigation into her relationship with Patient A she had also made no mention of her financial dependency on Patient A to the hospital trust she worked for.
“By not revealing the full nature of the financial dependencies, you prevented your employers from carrying out the appropriate safeguarding practices and risk assessments that may have been relevant to Patient A and Person A,” the report adds.
Parts of the hearing and charges were held in private and were redacted in the report.
The following charges against George were found proved, not proved or no case to answer, with the parts held in private struck out:
That George:
1. Between 2012 and 2016 breached professional boundaries with Patient A by: a. [PRIVATE] i. [PRIVATE] – Disputed but found proved
ii. inappropriate; and/or iii. unprofessional – disputed but found Proved
b. Provided care for Patient A and Person A whilst in a personal relationship with Patient A – disputed but found Proved
c. Entered into a tenancy agreement with Patient A’s business – admitted and found proved
d. Notwithstanding her agreement at charge 1c above, she stayed in Patient A’s property without paying rent – admitted and proved
e. Accepted Patient A and Person A’s business paying her utility bills – not Proved
f. Facilitated Patient A to change their will on or around April 2016 to add herself as a beneficiary – no case to answer
g. Fostered and/or failed to prevent a relationship of financial dependence on Patient A – disputed but found proved
h. Provided care for Patient A knowing she (George) was were the beneficiary of a substantial future inheritance – disputed but found proved
i. Abused the position of trust as a registered professional to gain an inheritance from Patient A – disputed but found Proved
j. Accepted gifts from Patient A in the form of ;
i. A car – admitted
ii. Cash on 10 February 2014 in the sum of £2,012 – disputed but found proved
iii. Cash for Person B on 27 October 2014 in the sum of £2,300 – disputed but found proved
iv. Shares and/or cash on 25 August 2015 in the sum of £9,959.01 disputed but found proved
v. Airline ticket for Person B – not proved
K. Listed herself and/or allowing herself to be listed as next of kin and/or adoptive daughter in Patient A’s medical records – disputed but proved
2. Her actions at charges 1 (a) to (k) above were motivated (either wholly or partly) by the pursuit of financial gain Disputed but Proved
3. Between 2012 and 2016 she failed to disclose to your employer the extent ofher financial dependency on Patient A and/or as beneficiary of Patient A’s will – disputed but found Proved
4. Her conduct at charge 3 above, was dishonest in that she was attempting to conceal from her employer that sheu had a financial dependency and/or a beneficiary of Patient A’s will – disputed but found proved.
5. On dates unknown she acted in a manner that was unprofessional and/or abusive towards Patient A and Person A, in that she:
a. shouted at Patient A – not Proved
b. when Patient A collapsed delayed by 3.5 hours in getting him to hospital’ – no case to answer
c. prevented Patient A speaking with family prior to their death – no case to answer.
d. threw a bunch of keys at Person A – not proved
e. pushed Person A to the floor on 5 December 2016 – no case to answer
f. excluded Person A from activities with you and Patient A – disputed but found prroved
g. was dismissive of Person A – disputed but found Proved
6. On an unknown date left copies of Patient B’s bank statements and/or will at Patient A’s home, breaching Patient B’s confidentiality. And in light of the above,her fitness to practise is impaired by reason of your misconduct.” Disputed but found proved
The panel’s report said it took into account George had “demonstrated some insight”, that she had admitted some events, provided several positive testimonials relating to her clinical practice and the “dishonesty” had occurred in a non-clinical setting. George had also practised for eight years since with no similar concerns
But the panel added: “Throughout the case, you did not accept that you were acting as a nurse or carer for Patient A. The panel noted that your conduct was related to how you took advantage of two elderly, vulnerable individuals for financial gain”.
The panel deemed that George’s actions found proved amounted to serious misconduct.