Dr Antonio Vega Vega at Brisbane QEII Law Complex. Source: News Corp Australia
A ROCKHAMPTON surgeon who was under scrutiny over his care of four patients threatened litigation if he was not given all material considered by investigators, a court has been told.
Urologist Dr Antonio Vega Vega, who removed the wrong kidney in a patient, repeatedly ignored requests for him to be interviewed during the investigation, counsel for Queensland Health told the court.
Dr Vega Vega has asked a judge to quash or declare invalid two reports that contained some adverse findings, claiming they were based on biased inquiries or denied him natural justice.
Declan Kelly QC said yesterday the health service investigators and clinical reviewers gave Dr Vega Vega reasonable opportunity to know about the issues under review and respond to them.
Last year a Queensland Civil and Administrative Appeals Tribunal judge found Dr Vega Vega posed no risk to patients and removed a Medical Board suspension and registration conditions.
In the Supreme Court yesterday Stephen Keim SC, for Dr Vega Vega, claimed clinical reviewers had “cherry picked’’ data on his various procedures on patients, finding he lacked experience.
He claimed investigators denied Dr Vega Vega access to witness statements and ignored other evidence.
Mr Kelly said after Dr Vega Vega ignored at least four interview requests, he was sent questions, which went unanswered.
He told the court Dr Vega Vega relied upon evidence before QCAT and sought an extension of time “to delay an outcome of the investigation’’.
Dr Vega Vega also made “a blanket request’’, through his solicitors, to see all the documents considered by the investigators, he said.
Mr Kelly said there was a “shift” from Dr Vega Vega wanting to provide answers to wanting to prevent the process going forward to completion.
“The focus then is not so much on giving information but ‘here are our demands and if they’re not met we’re going to court to solve this process’,” Mr Kelly said.
“They’re operating in a dynamic where litigation is being threatened to prevent the review proceeding.”
Mr Kelly said Dr Vega Vega was given drafts of the two reports, but would not compromise on wanting to see everything sighted by the investigators.
He said the investigators felt identities of 57 witnesses, who worked with Dr Vega Vega, had to remain confidential, as they were “more likely to be frank, truthful and honest’’.
Justice Ann Lyons has reserved her decision.