Charlie Teo defends claiming to media complainants of medical hearing were ‘hoodwinked’ and ‘coerced’
Charlie Teo has defended comments to the media that grieving loved ones were “hoodwinked” into complaining about him in an explosive last day of a five-day hearing.
Controversial neurosurgeon Charlie Teo has been grilled about explosive claims his “enemies” had “hoodwinked and coerced” two grieving widows into complaining about him.
It seemed the final day of a five-day hearing into alleged misconduct relating to two “catastrophic surgeries” performed by Dr Teo in 2018-2019 could not become more tense after he was accused of lying under oath and a supporter interrupted the proceedings to ask to “give evidence from the public gallery”.
But it reached boiling point as the Health Care Complaints Commission’s barrister Kate Richardson HC produced a pile of media reports in which Dr Teo claimed he believed the widowed husbands had been “coerced” and “hoodwinked” by his “enemies”.
“Is it your evidence that when this committee was weighing evidence with (one patient’s husband) … those concerns were not genuine and people got to him,” she asked.
Dr Teo said he “stands by” his comments to the media.
“I believe (the patient’s husband) has been hoodwinked into believing my intentions weren’t genuine,” he said, referring to the case of a 41-year-old woman who fell into a vegetative state after his operation and later died.
“I think enough people have got to him, (by) saying (to him) ‘I think it was Teo’s poor skill’”.
“I have no evidence for it, it was my opinion.”
The widowed husband earlier told the hearing Dr Teo told him after the failed surgery he cut too far and “into the wrong side of the brain”.
But Dr Teo told the hearing it was his opinion the man was “influenced by doctors”.
“I saw his original complaint – I believe he is a genuine person who has genuinely been destroyed by what happened and he was suggested to many sources it was Dr Teo’s fault, not the tumour, not his wife’s decision for surgery, it was my fault for the outcome”.
He went on to say he spoke to the husband after the surgery many times and that the husband “blamed himself”.
“He said ‘it wasn’t my fault’. I never charged him any money for the operation and everyone’s trying to say I’m money-hungry,” he said.
“It could be he genuinely believes it’s me, but I made the assumption he’s been got to by my enemies”.
Earlier in the hearing, Ms Richardson accused Dr Teo of lying under oath during the first half of his testimony on Thursday.
Ms Richardson referred to evidence from another experienced brain surgeon who put the risk of “profound neurological deficit” close to 60 per cent.
On Thursday, Dr Teo told the hearing he told the patient the risk of “death, locked in syndrome and paralysis” was five per cent, but that he told her there was a 100 per cent chance of “degrees of paralysis”.
On Monday, Ms Richardson asked him again if his recollection remained that he told the patient there would be a 100 per cent chance of degrees of paralysis, to which he said he “can’t remember every consultation had” but that it “sounds right”.
Ms Richardson questioned why he was certain he warned of that risk last week and now he could not remember.
“I want to suggest you’re being untruthful,” Ms Richardson said, a claim denied by Dr Teo.
“No, Teo said.
“What you can say here is the outcome is bad and the outcome without surgery could have been just as bad.”
Ms Richardson also claimed he wrote to the patient the benefits of the surgery were “to give her the best possible chance of long term survival” which might be two years if the surgery was successful and even 12 years with potential brain cancer research development.
Mr Teo said he only said that to give her hope after she had agreed to make her decision.
But Ms Richardson submitted the woman had not yet made her mind up and his letter would have been “highly informative” to a young mum’s decision.
During this cross-examination, a brain cancer survivor called Jodie Clarkson stood up and interrupted the proceedings to say:
“Excuse me your honour, could we give evidence in the public gallery about the consent process?”
More Coverage
Judge Jennifer Boland told the woman – who was wearing a shirt with messages of support of Dr Teo – that she could not.
The hearing is investigating complaints relating to two patients whose surgeries went horribly wrong.
Dr Teo and his lawyer, Matthew Hutchins, have maintained throughout the hearing that Dr Teo adequately explained the risks to both patients and he had both their best interests at heart.