IPO Porto
The president of IPO Porto, José Maria Laranja Pontes
Former presidents of the IPO of Porto and Algarve Hospital, Orange Pontes and Pedro Nunes will have injured those entities in almost 100,000 euros. They will be tried for bleaching crimes, economic participation in business and document falsification.
According to the prosecution, to which Lusa had access, José Maria Orange bridgeswho was chairman of the Board of Directors of the Portuguese Institute of Oncology of Porto (IPOP) between January 2006 and June 2019, and Pedro NunesChairman of the Board of Directors of the Algarve Hospital Center (Chua) of June 2013 and March 2016, “engendered a stratagem” that consisted of “celebrating a transfer agreement” between the two entities “intended to convince” Ipop doctors to provide services in the Algarve, “with the promise of a salary and costs higher than those allowed by law”.
The Public Prosecution Service (MP) believes that those two defendants and the director of Chua’s Human Resources Management Service at the date of the facts, Rita Carvalhothey acted “in order to allow a third person to obtain patrimonial advantages to which I had no right”.
It was also the objective of the defendants, says the MP, that Pedro Nunes obtained “a benefit in the fulfillment of the goals, objectives and performance of the hospital that administered, well knowing that with this caused two public companies in the state an undue economic expenditure”.
Thus, on February 12, the Court of St. John Novo, in Porto, Orange Pontes and Pedro Nunes for a crime of economic participation in business, two crimes of falsification of document and a crime of bleaching, being tried and a crime of bleaching, being a crime, being that Rita Carvalhos was tried for a crime of economic participation in business and a crime of falsifying documents.
The prosecution reports that in 2015 the chua “had a lack of radiotherapy oncologists” and that to overcome this situation could “hire doctors under the general regime of hiring in public functions” or “resorting to the mobility regime of doctors who were to perform functions in other public services ”.
However, the MP maintains that Orange Pontes and Pedro Nunes “agreed with each other raising Ipop doctors to provide services at the chua without resorting to the rules of those regimes” and “woke up to offer” doctors to accept “one salary and cost aids higher than that permitted by law ”.
To this end, “they created the appearance that the costs would be borne by Ipop, when they went by Chua”, and “decided to violate the law and disguise this violation with the conclusion of an agreement to which they called a ‘assignment agreement’ between the two institutions “, Which allowed an IPOP doctor to take duties at Chua,” receiving compensation per hour as if supplementary work was dealt with. “
The doctors in question would also receive “help and transportation expenses (…) as if work on a mobility basis”.
As details, they were Simulated Direct Adjustments to remunerate the hours of service of a radiotherapist, as well as their travels, which were made of plane but paid to the kilometer, between Ipop and Chua, where the expert had driver to take it from the airport to the accommodation.
Between June 2015 and November 2017, weekly trips were made from Porto to Faro by plane. However, the trips were reimbursed as if the doctor made 1200 kilometers by car, 50 cents per kilometer.
In addition, by order of the former Bastonary, the doctor had a driver on round trip between the airport and chua, who also provided him with accommodation at the hospital home, but without registering the overnight.
That “assignment agreement” allowed a doctor, the MP points out, receiving 68,400 euros by way of transport 28,270 as cost aid2,703 euros for the increase of hours of work such as supplementary work, making a total of 99,014 euros, and this clinician has returned 3,326 euros.
“The MP promotes that the defendants are condemned (…), jointly and severally, to pay the State the amount of 95,687 euros, corresponding to the value of the advantage obtained by a third party with the practice of the typical illicit fact,” reads the prosecution.
