An orthopaedic surgeon who provided six expert reports defending the medical practice of Dr Munjed Al Muderis failed to disclose he worked with the prominent surgeon and is co-owner of several businesses with him.
Al Muderis concluded his evidence in the Federal Court on Friday in his case against The Age, The Sydney Morning Herald and 60 Minutes over news reports published in 2022 that he says defamed him by suggesting he performed surgery negligently, and inadequately cared for patients after their surgery.
Surgeon Munjed Al Muderis (centre) with his legal team.Credit: Kate Geraghty
The 51-year-old specialises in osseointegration, an operation involving the insertion of titanium pins into the bone of an amputee to allow a prosthetic limb to be connected.
He argues his reputation was gravely injured by the publications, including through the use of language such as botched and mutilated.
On Friday, Dr Razvan Stoita, supplied the court with six reports and other affidavit evidence which defended Al Muderis’ practice.
Stoita admitted under cross-examination from the media companies’ barrister, Declan Roche, that his business relationship with Al Muderis was relevant when assessing the strength of the evidence he was providing to the court.
“I’m asking you whether you should have volunteered [the business connection],” Roche asked Stoita.
“I’ve never thought about it until you mentioned it, but it is not just the limb reconstruction [business] that we are shareholders [in],” Stoita replied.
“And do you see how those are matters that someone coming to read your evidence might consider relevant when they’re assessing the strength of evidence, do you accept that?” Roche asked.
“I accept that, yes.”
Dr Munjed Al Muderis, pictured in 2014 in his surgical scrubs.Credit: Tim Bauer
Stoita, Al Muderis and other doctors are shareholders in a new hospital that’s being built at Macquarie University, and have bought equipment together for patient care. The pair are also shareholders in and working at their clinic the Limb Reconstruction Centre.
The court also heard that Stoita was a friend of Al Muderis and had encouraged him to sue over the media reports.
“You should sue her personally for defamation,” Stoita sent to Al Muderis after the broadcast of the 60 Minutes program.
Stoita also pledged his support to Al Muderis at the time.
“I know that no matter what I can say can make it any easier. But I wouldn’t stress out if I were you. They are trying to win a war with crumbs. They’ve got nothing,” the court heard.
“You’ve got scores of patients publicly showing their support. And you’ve got all of us ready to go into bat for you. Just let us know.”
Al Muderis finished his own evidence on Friday, saying the media reports have made him reluctant to treat patients with certain conditions because he is worried they will accuse him of increasing the amount of pain they are feeling after their operation.
“It makes me feel that I am not going to treat another patient with disability in fear that they may come and accuse me that caused them more pain,” he said.
He said the reports had challenged his approach to patient care.
“My job as a clinician is to help people, and the way I look at this matter is that I’m very scared of touching any patient because of these kinds of allegations,” he said.
His barrister Sue Chrysanthou, SC, also produced medical reports stating that the patient, prior to the operation, was already experiencing excruciating pain, and that the objective of the operation was not to reduce that pain but improve her mobility.
“This particular patient was clearly, clearly, on several occasions, ... informed that this procedure was not to relieve her pain, this procedure was purely designed to allow her to walk, and she achieved that,” Al Muderis said.
The media defendants are arguing the defences of truth, contextual truth, honest opinion and public interest.
The case continues.
Get the day’s breaking news, entertainment ideas and a long read to enjoy. Sign up to receive our Evening Edition newsletter.