The long and complicated saga of a WhidbeyHealth Medical Center administrator who was charged and acquitted of assaulting a patient may finally be over.

Island County Superior Court Judge Alan Hancock ruled earlier this month that legal defense costs incurred by Linda Gipson, chief nursing officer, should be reimbursed from a special state fund for people who claim self defense and are acquitted.

Hancock also writes that the hospital violated the law by paying for Gipson’s defense through a loan, unless there’s some legal authority not cited in legal brief for the case.

Gipson is supposed to turn over $256,000 in reimbursements to the hospital; officials fronted her defense costs in what may have been an illegal loan of public funds. An additional $60,000 is for the legal costs she paid during the appeal.

Gipson’s attorney, Andrew Schwarz of Seattle, said the entire case was an enormous waste of money and unfairly put his client through hell for more than two years.

“The bottom line is what Linda did was appropriate,” he said. “It’s an example of the machine of the state coming down and nearly ruining someone’s life for doing something that is entirely appropriate.”

Prosecutors charged Gipson with misdemeanor assault in Island County District Court in July of 2014. Gipson was accused of assaulting a restrained patient; she argued that she held the patient by the chin and redirected her attention in a medically appropriate manner.

Island County Prosecutor Greg Banks previously defended the decision to charge Gipson, pointing out that several nurses from the hospital who witnessed the event felt Gipson’s actions were not appropriate.

This week Banks said he was disappointed in the judge’s ruling on the reimbursement issue but accepts the decision.

After Gipson was found not guilty, the district court judge ruled that she should be reimbursed from the fund for people who were acquitted on the basis of self defense. The state Attorney General’s Office appealed the ruling to superior court, however, and argued that she doesn’t qualify for reimbursement for a series of reasons.

Hancock ruled in Gipson’s favor on all issues but one last fall. The Attorney General’s Office asked Banks to handle the final issue, which was whether Gipson can be reimbursed on costs she did not incur; the hospital paid for nearly all her defense fees.

Schwarz filed documents showing that hospital officials agreed to pay for Gipson’s criminal defense, which Banks said is a violation of the state Constitution. Article 8, section 8 states that a public entity may not give or loan its money to an individual “except for the necessary support of the poor and infirm.”

In his ruling, Hancock writes that the loan was, in fact, given to Gipson without legal authority, unless there’s an authority not mentioned in legal briefs. But he found the fact that it’s illegal goes against Banks’ argument that Gipson shouldn’t be reimbursed for costs covered by an illegal loan.

“In point of fact, if the fees paid on Dr. Gipson’s behalf constituted an illegal loan to her, she would be legally obligated to pay back such loan,” he wrote.

Banks previously noted that the hospital’s loan to Gipson amounted to a limitless check and allowed her to put on a defense backed by the taxpayers.

In fact, Schwarz said Gipson would likely have been convicted in the case if the hospital hadn’t paid her legal fees. He said she didn’t have the resources to put on a full-scale defense which included testimony from three national experts in medical techniques related to the case.

Hancock also ruled against Banks’ arguments that Gipson shouldn’t be reimbursed because she’s under no legal obligation to repay the hospital and that the district court judge abused his discretion in issuing the reimbursement fees.

Hancock wrote that she qualifies for the fund. It is meant to protect people who are unfairly charged with a crime after defending themselves or others.

“She was clearly placed in legal jeopardy by having to defend herself against the charge and facing the possibility of financial ruin and the destruction of her professional career if she was found guilty,” he wrote.