The woman earlier pleaded guilty to two charges of altering a document with intent to defraud, netting her an insurance payout of only $638, but potentially having dire consequences for her career.
The charges carried a maximum penalty of 10 years' imprisonment.
She was granted permanent suppression of her name, occupation and the company which employed her in the Dunedin District Court this afternoon.
Counsel Anne Stevens KC argued the woman should be discharged without conviction because the consequences would be “hugely disastrous” for her client.
“Her life is her work and to lose that is pretty damaging for her,” Mrs Stevens said.
Court documents noted the defendant filled out an insurance-claim form in October 2022, submitting a dental invoice for a porcelain crown valued at $1258.
But when the insurance company contacted the dentist, they discovered the woman had never received such treatment and had only had an examination and X-ray, costing $128.
Four months later, she was at it again.
This time the defendant lodged a claim for $359, supposedly for an eye examination and new frames from a Dunedin optician.
Once again though, the insurance company’s inquiries proved the claim to be fraudulent.
The woman had been there for a check-up, but she had never bought the new glasses as the invoice suggested.
As a result, the defendant received $638 from the insurance company, a sum she had since repaid, the court heard.
When confronted by police, she said she had "made a stupid mistake due to feeling financial pressure and declining mental health".
Mrs Stevens said her client was not a dishonest person but had behaved in a “totally self-destructive” manner, and described the offending as a “collapse”.
The court heard she suffered from serious mental health issues.
Police were not opposed to the woman being discharged without conviction or being granted final name suppression, and noted the community work she had done since the offending came to light.
Judge Emma Smith noted the woman was "appalled" at her own behaviour, was otherwise of good character and had repaid the money.
“It was almost an act of self-sabotage to you, both personally and professionally,” she said.
The judge said the matter of most persuasion in granting the discharge without conviction and name suppression was the woman’s mental health struggles.
Judge Smith discharged the woman without conviction and ordered her to pay court costs of $148.
The court heard that the woman’s employer was awaiting until the conclusion of the court process to determine her status - although she had been removed from the company’s website.
The woman would still likely be subject to inquiry by the relevant professional body.
