Sue Chrysanthou,SC,told the Federal Court in Sydney during Al Muderis’ marathon defamation case against Nine that angry former patients were not “accurate historians” of their experience.
Surgeon Munjed Al Muderis and his barrister,Sue Chrysanthou,SC (second from right),outside the Federal Court in Sydney in September.Steven Siewert
“These are people,unfortunately for them,who have had so many health problems that they are unlikely to,in fact,other than something very specific,to be able to recall specific instances,” Chrysanthou said in closing remarks on Tuesday.
“It cannot be an easy situation that these patients find themselves in. And so,we don’t call all the patients liars. We do call a couple of them liars,and we do so in quite strident terms. But overwhelmingly not … we do say that they’re not accurate historians.”
Al Muderis is suingThe Age,The Sydney Morning Herald and60 Minutes over reports published and broadcast in September 2022.
He alleges the reports convey a range of defamatory meanings,including that he negligently performed osseointegration surgery and provided inadequate aftercare. Osseointegration surgery involves inserting titanium pins into the residual bone of an amputated limb to enable a prosthetic to be connected.
Nine,owner of the media outlets being sued,is seeking to rely on truth,honest opinion and public interest in its defence.
Chrysanthou argued that Nine’s submission Al Muderis was responsible for the “heartbreaking stories” of his patients was an aggravation. “Every single one of these patients was in a terrible situation when they came to see my client,” she said.
Chrysanthou said the ordinary,reasonable reader would understand that Al Muderis was “some sort of Dr Frankenstein” from Nine’s reporting. “That he is carrying out surgeries in a way that leaves people permanently and violently scarred and disfigured,” she said.
Chrysanthou also told the court that allegations her client had misled patients and failed to gain informed consent were “so unlikely to the point of being ridiculous” as he was part of a large team.
Dr Munjed Al Muderis outside court in September.Dion Georgopoulos
“Dr Al Muderis,he’s not that charming. He’s really going to convince people to go against their professional duties to patients,and to say nothing?” Chrysanthou said.
“What the respondents[Nine] say happened is just so unlikely that the proof to get over that has to be overwhelming.”
During his closing address on Tuesday,Nine lawyer Dr Matt Collins,KC,said Al Muderis was undeserving of his unblemished reputation,following “glaring examples,in our submission,of negligence in surgery,in each case,with catastrophic results”.
“Now,the case studies in relation to negligence in surgery are particularly significant in our submission because at the core of a surgeon’s right to a good reputation is the performance of surgery to a competent standard,” he said.
On Monday,Collins told the court that Al Muderis was and appeared to be “incapable of admitting errors”. Collins also said nothing of substance had emerged during the 15-week defamation case to “shake the fundamental accuracy” of Nine’s reporting.
“What the evidence established was discreditable conduct by him before surgery,during surgery,after surgery,” Collins said.
“Dr Al Muderis,in our submission,is a very unsatisfactory witness.”
With Melissa Cunningham
Get the day’s breaking news,entertainment ideas and a long read to enjoy.