‘Top of the range’ payout for negligence claim against Charlie Teo

A critically ill former patient of Charlie Teo has received a “top of the range” settlement from the controversial neurosurgeon on the eve of a seven-day medical negligence hearing.

Grant Schultz’s wife, Julieann, also received a payout for her claim against Teo for psychological injury.

Grant Schultz and his wife Julieann both received settlement payouts after suing neurosurgeon Charlie Teo.

In approving judgment for Schultz, Supreme Court Justice Richard Cavanagh said that “on one view, the settlement reflects the top of the range for the plaintiff”.

In late 2015, Schultz, who is 40 and lives in Toowoomba, was diagnosed with a grade 3 anaplastic astrocytoma, a brain tumour with a survival of rate between three and five years.

Schultz’s neurosurgeon advised him that his tumour was inoperable and referred him to an oncologist.

A second opinion was sought from Teo who, on January 19, 2016, advised Schultz that he could resect the tumour, which he said would give Schultz a greater life expectancy.

That same day, a GoFundMe page was set up to raise the $35,000 needed for Teo’s fees, plus another $45,000 for the costs at Prince of Wales Private Hospital.

Charlie Teo arrives at a disciplinary hearing in Sydney in February.Credit: Peter Rae

According to Schultz’s statement of claim, Teo performed the surgery six days after the initial consultation. A post-operative MRI showed the tumour had already infiltrated other areas.

Grant Schultz received a confidential payout after the settlement of his medical negligence claim against Charlie Teo.

Six weeks later, another MRI showed that the tumour was growing back. Schultz alleged that Teo should have referred him for radiation therapy or chemotherapy, which is standard treatment.

Teo denied telling Schultz that he should keep these treatments “up his sleeve” for when the tumour progressed.

An MRI performed in July 2019 showed the rapid progression of Schultz’s tumour. Despite the scans being sent to Teo personally as Schultz’s treating doctor, Teo claimed he did not review them but instead delegated the review to his surgical fellow.

In late February 2020, another MRI was done. The tumour had progressed to the very worst, a grade 4 glioblastoma or GBM.

According to Jon Weingart, a professor of neurosurgery at Johns Hopkins University in the US, “If brain tumours were sharks, the … GBM would be the great white … because of its almost unstoppable aggression.”

Weingart has stated that the standard treatment for a GBM is surgery, followed by daily radiation and oral chemotherapy for 6½ weeks, then a six-month regimen of oral chemotherapy given five days a month.

Schultz suffered a stroke during Teo’s second surgery in March 2020 and lost movement down one side of his body, as well as having visual and cognitive impairment.

In his medical negligence claim against Teo, Schultz said there was a “foreseeable risk” that he would suffer harm and have a shorter life expectancy because of Teo’s treatment, including his failure to refer him to an oncologist.

Teo denied he had been negligent. He said his conduct in performing both surgeries and his post-surgical interactions with Schultz had been “in accordance with the conduct of his peers”. Teo, through his lawyers, also claimed that Schultz’s “own negligence caused his injury, loss and damage”.

On August 2, Cavanagh approved the settlement, without Teo admitting liability, avoiding the seven-day hearing which was due to start on August 7. Given Schultz’s cognitive impairment and limited life expectancy, possibly less than a year, the judge said he was satisfied that the settlement, the terms of which are confidential, was “a good result”.

Tom Lyons, from Meridian Lawyers, representing Teo and his business, The Centre for Minimally Invasive Neurosurgery, declined to comment.

Alix Shanahan, from Shine Lawyers, said the firm was “happy to have reached an expedited settlement on behalf of Grant and Julieann Schultz”. Her clients declined to comment.

In 2019 another patient, Michelle Smith, also received a confidential settlement after she sued Teo for professional negligence for operating on the wrong side of her brain.

Last month, Teo was found guilty of unsatisfactory professional conduct over two catastrophic surgeries in which the risks of his futile operations were found to far outweigh any potential benefits. It was also found that Teo had misled patients about the risks and had not obtained informed consent. The neurosurgeon was also found to have charged an inappropriate fee of $35,000 before one patient’s surgery.

The Morning Edition newsletter is our guide to the day’s most important and interesting stories, analysis and insights. Sign up here.