Charlie Teo’s lawyers warn disciplinary board of ‘hindsight bias’ in making decision on surgeries that left two women with catastrophic brain injuries
- Neurosurgeon Dr. Charlie Teo appeared at the disciplinary hearing
- He defends himself over complaints about his standard of care
As a disciplinary hearing for top neurosurgeon Charlie Teo winds down, his lawyers have warned of applying “hindsight bias” to two catastrophic surgeries.
Lawyers for brain surgeon Charlie Teo have warned a disciplinary board to avoid “hindsight bias” in ruling on surgeries he performed that left two female patients with catastrophic brain injuries.
Dr. Teo faced a final hearing from Sydney’s Health Care Complaints Commission (HCCC) on Wednesday before deliberations begin on whether he should receive a professional reprimand and additional oversight of his practice.
Allegations include that Dr. Teo failed to properly inform patients about the risks of surgery, failed to obtain proper patient consent, punched one of the patients in the face, and used unprofessional language during consultations.
Commissioner Kate Richardson said during her closing submission that Dr. Teo removed a large portion of a patient’s right frontal lobes without informing her first.
Neurosurgeon Charlie Teo leaves Sydney Health Care Complaints Commission disciplinary hearing with fiancé Traci Griffiths on Wednesday
Mr Teo spoke to the media after the hearing as supporters of the neurosurgeon held a banner
Matthew Hutchings, attorney for Dr.
He said judgments during proceedings were sometimes made “in the heat of the moment” and no “hindsight bias” should be applied to the complaints.
Earlier on Wednesday, Ms Richardson argued that Dr Teo displayed a lack of judgment and insight in how he dealt with patients’ families and how he dealt with discrepancies between his own views and the opinions of other experts.
She questioned the future risk to the public in Dr Teo’s response to allegations that he punched a patient in the face in full view of her relatives.
Dr. Teo told the hearing this week that it was not a “Will Smith-type slap” and that he would continue to rouse patients using the method.
“He identified his main failing, he said, was that he did it and the family could see it,” said Ms Richardson.
Mr. Hutchings noted that Dr. Teo’s competence as a surgeon was not questioned by any of the experts who appeared at the hearing.
“It cannot be said that the operation was not carried out with due care and skill, in an appropriate effort to deliver what was planned,” he said.
Mr Hutchings said when surgeons have poor results, as was the case for Dr Teo, they think about learning so they can do better next time.
‘That’s exactly what medical science relies on. We learn along the way. It’s an iterative process,’ Mr Hutchings said.
Passionate support for Dr. Teo can carry little weight in the board’s decision whether or not to impose a professional reprimand and conditions on him.
Mr Teo’s lawyers warned against ‘hindsight bias’, claiming he had only the best intentions for his patients
A supporter hugged Mr. Teo as he prepared to leave
Letters from ten overseas-based neurosurgeons and 47 former patients and their families were presented to the board, along with three emails and a letter of support from Australian medical professionals.
No formal statements of support were provided by the Australian-based neurosurgeons, despite Dr. Teo contacted two of his colleagues, it was said at the hearing.
The Commission’s junior counsel, Megan Caristo, argued that the expert panel gives ‘little weight’ to the material as it does not specifically address the complaints facing Dr Teo.
“There is nothing in those letters or statements to their faces that shows that the authors … were aware of the complaints and their particulars,” Ms. Caristo said.
Dr. Teo has previously admitted that he did something during the operation that injured the women, but he firmly rejected any suggestion that he was negligent.
“I also want to try to understand why the patient had a poor outcome,” Dr Teo told the study on Tuesday.
“Obviously I went too far somewhere.”
A four-member Professional Standards Committee deliberates on a decision.