Surgeon calls bias on patient inquiries

0
193

A ROCKHAMPTON surgeon wants two reports into his care of four patients quashed or declared invalid, claiming there was bias in two inquiries or a breach of procedural fairness.

Urologist Dr Antonio Vega Vega on Wednesday has begun a Supreme Court civil application, asking a judge to make a statutory review order relating to two Queensland Health commissioned reports.

Spanish-born Dr Vega Vega, who removed the wrong kidney in a patient at Rockhampton Base Hospital, will not give evidence.

The application relates to a health service investigation report and a clinical review report into Dr Vega Vega’s patient care at Rockhampton Hospital, delivered to Queensland Health.

Dr Vega Vega’s counsel, Stephen Keim, SC, told the court the investigators refused to make available 57 witness statements or results of interviews they did before writing reports.

“We say there was a breach of natural justice in ignoring evidence or protecting evidence without providing any reasons,” Mr Keim told Justice Ann Lyons.

Mr Keim said Dr Vega Vega was not given access to material upon which the reports were based and it seemed investigators placed no reliance on a doctor’s evidence that favoured him.

“We say what’s happened here is very strange,” Mr Keim said of the failure to provide witness statements to Dr Vega Vega.

He claimed the investigators also failed to take into consideration reasons given in Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal by Judge Alexander Horneman-Wren.

In June last year the QCAT judge found Dr Vega Vega, who removed the wrong kidney in a patient, did not pose a serious risk to patients.

Judge Alexander Horneman-Wren set aside a Medical Board of Australia suspension and registration conditions.

He said it appeared a health service investigator and a clinical review investigator did not read the judge’s reasons or did not mention them in the reports.

“The matter should very much have been taken into account,” Mr Keim said.

Mr Keim asked the judge to quash or set aside the health service report because of apprehended bias or declare it was produced in breach of natural justice and was invalid.

The health service investigation was into the standard and quality of care provided to four patients by hospital doctors and the adequacy of hospital policies and practices.

But Mr Keim said: “The focus was on what the applicant (Dr Vega Vega) did, in order to see if the applicant did anything wrong.”