Dr Charlie Teo left hanging by fellow neurosurgeons after plea for help

Not one Australian neurosurgeon would send a letter in support of Charlie Teo to the medical panel assessing complaints of malpractice against the controversial brain surgeon.

While Dr Charlie Teo had the backing of dozens of his patients, not one of his Australian peers stepped up to support him as he battled complaints of medical malpractice, an inquiry heard.

For eight days over two months, the controversial neurosurgeon was the centre of a misconduct hearing before the Health Care Complaints Commission’s Professional Standards Committee, relating to his care of two women who had late stage brain tumours.

The claims centred on allegations he did not appropriately explain the risks of surgery to the women — known as Patient A and Patient B — or their husbands, that he conducted operations that went further than what he received consent for, and that he lacked empathy and insight.

Some of the statements made about his character made him “want to vomit” but the support of his patients “kept him going”.

More than 100 pages of supportive messages and statements from his supporters were tendered to the committee, as well as 47 letters from former patients and his family.

Charlie Teo had his request for support letters left unanswered. Picture: Richard Dobson

Ten international neurosurgeons also provided letters of support for Dr Teo — but on the final day of the hearing, it was revealed Dr Teo’s requests for letters of recommendation from Australian neurosurgeons went unanswered.

On Wednesday, the HCCC’s solicitor Megan Caristo told the committee the letters of support and recommendations should hold “little weight” when considering his guilt and whether further restrictions be put on his medical licence.

“All the letters contain broad and general statements,” she said. “There isn’t anything in those letters to show authors were aware of the complaints.”

One of his distressed supporters, Charlie Meo, jumped up before the hearing to defend the decision, after Dr Teo gave his mother Theresa “six more years to live” when other surgeons refused to operate on her.

The husbands of Patient A and Patient B feel wronged by Dr Teo. Picture: Richard Dobson

The chair of the panel Jennifer Boland quickly sat Mr Meo down, telling him that while he had “the best motivations in the world” his support — or the kind words of any other of Dr Teo’s supporters, friends and family that filled the room — could not be considered by the panel.

The hearing has been centred on Dr Teo’s care of Patient A, a 41-year-old mum from Western Australia who had a late stage glioma, and Patient B, a 61-year-old grandmother who also had a late stage brain tumour.

The husband’s of both women made complaints against Dr Teo, after their wives failed to wake up from their surgeries and ultimately died. Both say the neurosurgeon did not explain the risks of the surgery.

“My savings and super went on saving my wife, I had to sell our house and move into a retirement village,” Patient B’s husband complaint read. “I paid $35,000 for my wife to die.”

The HCCC’s barrister Kate Richardson submitted that Teo used “apocalyptic language” during a consultation, which made Patient B and her husband feel that surgery was necessary within a week otherwise she would die.

“To speak to a patient or next of kin in that way would have a massive impact,” she said.

“To use language like (he did) in the process of obtaining consent is completely inappropriate.”

While the NSW Medical Council has already barred the 65-year-old from operating in Australia without written approval, the HCCC is seeking “broader” conditions that would restrict his medical licence, as well as a reprimand.

Dr Teo’s barrister Michael Hutchings argued the neurosurgeon should not be the subject of further restrictions and that he “deeply regrets” that the women did not have better outcomes.

“It cannot be said he has acted in the best interests of this patients,” he said,

“The outcomes are devastating and that is regrettable. It is an awful outcome of brain surgery, he saw each of these patients when they were in the most dire position they had ever been.

“He did his very best to offer them a better outcome than what they were facing.”

He argued that both women knew that the surgeries may not be successful, and that was a sad fact of their situations.

“The natural tendency in poor outcomes … is to attribute blame, and that must be resisted by this committee,” Mr Hutchings said.

The hearing adjourned for the final time on Wednesday, with the committee set to consider the evidence of 10 witnesses who took the stand, and decide the fate of the 65-year-old’s operating future.

“Everyday I get patients from around the world … They want me to operate and isn’t it sad that I can’t even operate in my own country,” Dr Teo said outside the hearing.

“There is something wrong with the system. The system is very broken. It’s dysfunctional.”

TEO ACCUSED OF TRYING TO ‘MISLEAD’ HEARING

Neurosurgeon Dr Charlie Teo has been accused of being “deliberately untruthful” and lacking in “empathy and insight” in a scathing attack launched by the Health Care Complaints Commission.

Dr Teo is facing two complaints of “unsatisfactory conduct” related to the care of two of his female patients who had aggressive, late-stage brain cancers.

In a hearing before the Health Care Complaints Commission’s (HCCC) professional standards committee, the husband’s of both women complained Dr Teo did not explain the risks of the surgery, and that his operations left them in vegetative states before they ultimately died.

While the NSW Medical Council has already barred the 65-year-old from operating in Australia without written approval, the HCCC is seeking “broader” conditions that would restrict his medical licence, as well as a reprimand.

In her final address to the committee following seven days of evidence, the HCCC’s barrister Kate Richardson SC made several scathing remarks about Teo’s character, saying he was an unreliable witness and gave “deliberately untruthful” evidence to “augment his case” in relation to Patient A.

Neurosurgeon Charlie Teo with his fiancee Traci Griffiths outside the HCCC. Picture: Richard Dobson

The husband of Patient A - a mum in her 40s who was suffering from a late stage glioblastoma - claims Dr Teo did not tell he and his wife all the risks associated with the removal of her tumour in their 2018 consultation - and that the risk of “devastating outcome or death” was five per cent.

Dr Teo had explained to the woman the tumour was “tectal” the hearing heard, however, his own expert Dr Bryant Stokes told the inquiry the risk of removing a tectal tumour was much higher - and sat at around 60 per cent.

Under examination, Ms Richardson claimed Dr Teo changed his evidence following Dr Stokes’ evidence - saying the tumour was not in fact tectal.

“He was being untruthful and deliberately trying to side step the evidence of his own expert which was so damning when it comes to the risks he proposed,” she said.

“His evidence should not be accepted unless it’s corroborated by other material.”

Ms Richardson claimed that Dr Teo’s disagreement with his own experts and peers showed a “lack of insight” and claimed he had “no empathy” for the husband of Patient A - who complained about the surgeon’s conduct after his wife failed to wake up following surgery.

Neurosurgeon Dr Teo was accused of giving ‘untruthful testimony’ by the HCCC’s barrister. Picture: Sam Ruttyn

In evidence, Dr Teo claimed the husband had been “coerced” into making a complaint and that they had a good relationship.

“Dr Teo had a lack of empathy and a lack of ability to reflect on what happened,” Ms Richardson said.

“He stood by the fact there was no substance to the husband’s complaint and dismissed him as someone with malevolent intentions.”

She also noted that during the consultation with Patient A, Dr Teo’s fellow Amit Goyal was only present in the room for three minutes, yet wrote a lengthy statement recounting the potential risks the neurosurgeon had outlined to Patient A and her husband.

“In effect (Dr Goyal) came forward to defend Dr Teo and conveyed inaccurately that he was an eyewitness to the consent process,” she said.

“If we didn’t reveal it, we would have two neurosurgeons up against one man - and that is very serious conduct for him to come along and do that.”

Patient B - a grandmother in her 60s from Victoria - did not wake from a brain surgery conducted by Dr Teo in 2019 and died shortly after. Her husband filed a complaint with the HCCC, claiming Dr Teo “acted negligently” and removed “too much” of his wife’s brain during surgery in early 2019.

Dr Teo told the inquiry he had since realised the catastrophic ending came down to “one or two millimetres” of error - yet denied allegations he was reckless or negligent.

“I think I’ve been too aggressive here,” he said pointing to a post operative MRI of the woman’s brain.

Dr Teo outside the Health Care Complaints Commission Professional Standards Committee Inquiry on March 27. Picture: Richard Dobson

“I think I’ve gone across the midline here, one or two millimetres, and that’s enough to damage a patient when doing surgery in this area … I think I’ve gone a bit too far here and caused the bad outcome”.

Outside the hearing, retired doctor Kiran Phadke, who referred hundreds of patients to Dr Teo over the years, expressed concerns about the complaints process involving his colleague.

“Hearings like this make surgeons frightened, and we could lose many people of Charlie’s calibre.”

Outside the hearing, Dr Teo said he “wanted to vomit” after hearing Ms Richardson’s submissions.

“Call me any name you want, but to say I lack empathy…. That was terrible,” he said.

“I love my patients, I cry for my patients. It’s not just an insult to me but there’s poor ladies (who have died).”