Hobart surgeon’s botched haemorrhoid surgery appeal

A Hobart Private Hospital surgeon will need to pay a patient thousands after a haemorrhoid surgery went wrong.

Dr Tony Patiniotis failed in a bid to reduce the $755k damages awarded after a botched haemorrhoid removal surgery.

A Tasmanian judge has rejected a general surgeon’s appeal against a $755,000 damages award for a botched haemorrhoid removal surgery while also dismissing the patient’s appeal for more compensation for suffering.

Dr Tony Patiniotis, a general surgeon at Hobart Private Hospital carrying out colorectal procedures, was ordered by the Supreme Court in June last year to pay a female patient $755,475 for negligence in a haemorrhoidectomy.

The patient alleged that during a haemorrhoidectomy in 2013 when she was aged 58 years old, a staple used to reattach haemorrhoids to the anal canal was placed too low in the canal, leaving her with a stoma bag and “permanent and disabling injury, with ongoing symptoms causing pain and affecting the operation of her bowels and gastrointestinal system”.

“She required a further operative procedure to deal with the impact on her bowel function, namely a loop ileostomy, and this had its own adverse consequences for her,” the Supreme Court judgment stated.

“It was alleged that there had also been a severe aggravation of a pre-existing psychological illness.”

Dr Patiniotis appealed this decision, arguing that the expert evidence provided in the hearing did not “support a causal link between any proved negligence in the performance of the procedure and the subsequent deterioration of the respondent’s health”.

He also stated that the previous judge erred in agreeing with the expert testimony provided in court, which he had disagreed with during cross-examination.

However, the patient cross-appealed, “challenging the award of general damages to her for pain and suffering and loss of enjoyment of life”.

The appeal was before the Full Court, comprised of Chief Justice Chris Shanahan, Justice Stephen Estcourt and Justice Tamara Jago, who decided both the doctor’s appeal and the patient’s cross-appeal would be dismissed.

“The respondent’s case was not an entirely circumstantial case,” the decision stated.

“The appellant [Patiniotis] conceded that if the staple line has been positioned so low that it crossed or was below the dentate line, then that would be sufficient to establish a breach of duty.

“The evidence of Dr Sitzler was direct evidence of negligence.

“I agree that the trial judge correctly weighed Dr Sitzler’s evidence against the other evidence before he determined the ultimate factual issue, namely the location of the staple line and that there was no error in his Honour’s analysis”

The judges also concluded that the previous judge’s damage figure was “defensible”.

“His Honour was faced with a case requiring a broadbrush approach to discounting to take account of the respondent’s pre-existing conditions,” the judgement stated.

“This appeal may be a rehearing, but it is not a retrial.

“The award is “defensible”, it is not “extreme”.”

Originally published as Hobart surgeon’s botched haemorrhoid surgery appeal