August 17, 2025 • 24 mins
For more than a decade of dazzling media coverage, Dr Munjed Al Muderis was lauded as a miracle worker to some of the most vulnerable people in our community, helping people to walk again, against all odds, after losing their limbs in accidents and warzones.
This all came crashing down, after a months-long investigation by reporter Charlotte Grieve, who exposed allegations of treatment gone horribly wrong with patients left disfigured, depressed and in excruciating pain, with horrific medical complications.
Today, investigative reporter Charlotte Grieve, on a recent - and landmark - court case that backfired on the surgeon, and why, even after the damning Federal Court judgment, Dr Al Muderis is still practicing.
Subscribe to The Age & SMH: https://subscribe.smh.com.au/
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
S1 (00:01):
From the newsrooms of the Sydney Morning Herald and The Age.
This is the morning edition. I'm Samantha Selinger Morris. It's Monday,
August 18th. For more than a decade of dazzling media coverage,
Doctor Munjed Al Muderis was lauded as a miracle worker
to some of the most vulnerable people in our community,
(00:23):
helping people to walk again. Against all odds, after losing
their limbs in accidents and war zones. This all came
crashing down after a months long investigation by reporter Charlotte Grieve,
who exposed allegations of treatment gone horribly wrong with patients
left disfigured, depressed and in excruciating pain with horrific medical complications. Today,
(00:50):
investigative reporter Charlotte Grieve on a recent landmark court case
that backfired on the surgeon and why, even after the
damning federal court judgment, Doctor Al Medeiros is still practicing. So, Charlotte,
let's get into who doctor Munjed al Muderis is, because
(01:13):
I think it's fair to say he had something of
a difficult start, I guess, for someone who then went
on to become one of the country's most acclaimed orthopaedic surgeons.
So tell us a little bit about who he is.
S2 (01:23):
Yeah. Doctor Amadeus has a fascinating life story, as documented
in his various memoirs. He came to Australia as a refugee,
and he spent almost a year in one of Australia's
most notorious immigration detention centres, Curtin, which is in the
Western Australian desert. When he was finally released from there,
(01:44):
he built a very successful career as an orthopedic surgeon.
He was most known for his practice in osseointegration surgery,
which is an invasive and fairly new procedure for amputees
that can have for the right people incredible benefits. It
can help people walk again. It can relieve the blisters
(02:07):
and chafing that come with traditional socket prosthetics. But it
also comes with immense risks. And how Doctor Madeira's portrayed
those risks to his patients is ultimately what got him
in trouble.
S1 (02:18):
Now we're going to get into how you really did
find yourself at the center of Doctor Madeira's story, which
is quite extraordinary. But before we get into that, can
you just tell us how you first heard about the
orthopedic surgeon?
S2 (02:30):
Absolutely. So, yeah, new stories come from any number of places.
They come from sources, from tips, from whistleblowers, from documents. Uh,
in this case, this story came from a conversation with
my father. He's an amputee, and he consulted with Doctor
Al Medeiros in 2018. Now, he didn't go ahead with
the surgery, but he was warned during that process that
(02:53):
Doctor Medeiros mistreats his patients. And that really stuck in
the back of my mind for years, and I thought
if I ever had the opportunity, I'd take a closer look. Now,
the personal side of this story is something that I
have written about extensively in a book that I'm working on,
that's supposed to come out in February 2026. It's a
(03:14):
quite personal memoir, which is an unusual place for journalists
to be at times, but I'm really proud to have
the opportunity to tell that story properly.
S1 (03:24):
Well, I know you wrote in one of your stories
that a Sydney surgeon told you everyone has a story
about Madeiras, and he didn't mean that in a positive way.
And as part of your initial investigation, you spoke with
former and current patients of the doctor from all over
around the world, as well as medical staff and whistleblowers.
But I really want you to tell us the story
of one particular patient, Leah Mooney.
S2 (03:46):
Yeah, Leah Mooney is an amazing woman. I've got to
know her and her family very well throughout this experience,
but she was one of Doctor Madeiras early patients. She
badly broke her leg during a skiing incident in 2011,
(04:06):
and she was treated by Doctor Al Medeiros. He operated
on her leg and when she came out of that surgery,
it protruded violently to one side and all of her
family were saying, this doesn't look right. Can you do something?
And then he falsely misrepresented to her and the family
that he needed to do a second surgery as part
(04:26):
of a planned two stage surgery. Now, that was a lie.
It always was a lie. But in any event, the
second surgery went ahead and after that Leah developed an
infection which had devastating consequences. She ended up suing doctor
Al Medeiros for medical negligence and got a $1.75 million payout,
(04:49):
but her leg is still damaged permanently to this day
from his failure to diagnose that infection.
S1 (04:56):
If I understand this correctly, your story indicated that another surgeon,
I think, was quite shocked by the infection that he
or she found in her leg once. Liam Mooney subsequently
went to another doctor. Right. And found that I think
he was quite surprised that Doctor Medeiros had not seen
the severity of this infection. Is that right?
S2 (05:13):
Exactly. The infection was very far progressed to an alarming degree,
and this doctor who treated Leah subsequently couldn't understand why
he didn't investigate. She had all the symptoms of infection.
Her leg was passing, it was red. It was swollen.
Various doctors had raised with Doctor Medeiros specifically, they were
(05:34):
concerned about infection and he aggressively dismissed them. He was
rude to them and he told them things like osteomyelitis
is not a term we like to use in orthopedic surgery.
So it was quite an extraordinary reaction to what should
be something that doctors take very seriously. Any sign of
infection should be investigated properly immediately, and that simply didn't
(05:56):
happen here.
S1 (06:00):
And did he just deny that there was any infection?
Is that is that what he said?
S2 (06:04):
Yes. And in fact, he initially blamed the crookedness of
her leg on the plate that he inserted. But when
the next doctor opened her up and saw the plate,
he said, there's nothing to do with it. It's not
the plate, it's the application of the plate. So not
only did Doctor Almajiris fail to diagnose the infection, he
(06:24):
failed to conduct the initial surgery in an appropriate manner.
It's really devastating the impact that this treatment has had
on her. Leah Mooney was a very active person prior
to this accident, and while her leg break was bad,
Doctor Almajiris treatment of her made it irreversibly worse. So
(06:49):
that was one part, but the other part that really
impacted Leah and other patients Patience was just the way
that he dismissed her concerns time and time again. The
way he lied to her about the surgeries that he
was performing, and the way he just did not take
her concerns seriously. It made her doubt herself. It made
her doubt the whole medical system. And it really eroded
(07:10):
trust in Australia's healthcare system, which is a really unfortunate situation.
S1 (07:20):
And now, the first story that you had about these
allegations against Al Muderis was published in 2022. So what
happened after that, and how did the doctor himself react
to it?
S2 (07:30):
His reaction was incredibly defensive from the very beginning. He
has always denied that he has done anything wrong. He
has blamed his patients. He has effectively gone to war
with his patients, accusing them of lying. One he called
through his counsel, a lying fantasist, which the judge found
(07:51):
was an extremely disrespectful thing for a doctor to say,
let alone about their own patient. So he's had this
scorched earth mentality from the very beginning, and that's very
reflective of the findings, the credit findings that the judge
ultimately made on Doctor Al Medeiros, as someone who simply
is not able to accept that he's done anything wrong,
(08:13):
despite mountains of evidence against him and his determination to
lie in the face of plain documents. So he applied
that approach to the media. He went on the attack.
He said the stories were false. He said the patients
were lying. He briefed through his lawyers or him personally, uh,
News Corp papers to denigrate our witnesses, to denigrate the
(08:36):
patients and to denigrate myself and my father. So he
had a multi-pronged attack on me, the patients, our journalism
and our company. And ultimately he was found to be
the liar.
S1 (08:50):
Well, let's get to this attack, really that you sustained
and lots of other people have sustained because you keep
mentioning the judge. And of course, there was a judge
involved because he sued nine, the company we work for,
for defamation, alleging that the stories that you wrote did
defame him. And let's get into this, because as part
of the defamation action you were in, I've got to
say it's got to be an unenviable position of being
(09:11):
cross-examined in court by one of Australia's most well known
defamation lawyers, Sue Chrysanthou, just to remind the listeners she
is considered the defamation barrister in Australia. She's represented actor
Geoffrey Rush and Gina Rinehart and Lachlan Murdoch. Now this
is pretty extraordinary because you actually spent six days in
the witness stand being grilled by Chrysanthou. We actually think
(09:32):
that sets a record for the longest cross-examination of any
Australian journalist, even a day longer than mushroom murderer Aaron
Patterson was cross-examined. I mean, this sounds like an absolute nightmare.
Can you just take us through a little bit, I guess.
What's that like?
S2 (09:46):
Yeah, it was a it was not a nice situation
to be in, particularly the method and approach that Chrisanthou
took to the cross examination not just of me, but
to all the patients. It was extremely aggressive at times.
It was quite personal. So while I was understandably nervous
as anyone is getting in the witness box like that,
(10:09):
ultimately I didn't find it that challenging, to be honest,
because we had truth on our side. And you know,
when you're telling the truth, it's quite easy to answer questions.
And when she's putting theories to you that are simply
bizarre and beyond comprehension, it was quite easy to say, no,
you're not right. So while six days is an extraordinarily
(10:33):
long time and an exhausting experience for me and all
the other witnesses, ultimately it was easy because we were
telling the truth.
S1 (10:42):
Well, this takes us to the next issue, which is,
of course, the judgment that finally came back and it
was in your favour. So what did the judgement actually say,
and what did it mean to you? And I guess
his former patients.
S2 (10:53):
Yeah. So the judgment is 770 pages long. It came
out last Friday. I've been reading pretty much, you know,
as much of it as I can in the entire
time since it was released, as I go through it
in more and more detail. It's just emphatically proves time
and time again that all the patients were telling the truth.
(11:16):
It proves that Doctor Almajiris prioritized money, fame and numbers
over the safety of his patients.
S3 (11:26):
The smiles say it all.
S4 (11:28):
I'm happy that he's not going to cause damage to
people anymore. No one's going to suffer.
S3 (11:34):
Leah, a patient of Munjed Al Muderis, wanted to be
in court today for closure.
S4 (11:39):
It's so wonderful to finally get some justice.
S2 (11:42):
So broadly, the judge found there were unethical elements throughout
every stage of his practice. That's from the patients he
chose to operate, which he deemed inappropriate to the aftercare
he provided, where he ignored pleas for help to the
way that he solicited patients using high pressure sales tactics.
(12:04):
So it was a very comprehensive finding of unethical behavior
at every stage of his medical practice. One of the
more harrowing examples of poor patient selection was Mark Urquhart. Now,
he featured in our initial investigation.
S5 (12:22):
Good evening, and welcome to a special edition of 60 minutes.
I'm Tom Steinfort. Doctor Gerald Medeiros is always happy to
tell his life story. And why not?
S2 (12:32):
Doctor Almajiris performed a double amputation on him.
S5 (12:36):
Mark never set out to be an inspiration. In fact,
his dream has always been a simple one. There was
one thing that you wanted more than anything.
S6 (12:48):
To walk And to walk again for my kids and
for my daughter especially. You'll get me all emotional a minute,
but that one touches me.
S2 (13:01):
He was a paraplegic and osseointegration. After that, the judge
ruled this was an experimental surgery.
S6 (13:09):
He's that good at talking that you think that he's
going to be the one to fix all your problems? Well, no,
he doesn't. Makes them worse. Actually, for me.
S2 (13:21):
After the judgment, I got a call from Mark Urquhart
and he was tearing up as he spoke with me.
And he was so thankful to be believed and so
thankful for the opportunity to tell his story, which wasn't easy.
He suffered a lot in the witness box as well.
He suffered a lot throughout his life. And finally, for
a court to rule that him and all the other
(13:43):
patients were honest, credible, believable, good people meant the world.
And that really means the world to me.
S1 (13:57):
We'll be right back. And I really wanted to get
into the importance of this finding, you know, even more
broadly beyond, of course, your own vindication and the vindication
of the former patients who have suffered and, you know,
they weren't believed. And, of course, it must be, you know,
hugely gratifying on some level. Of course, to now finally
(14:18):
be believed or have their experiences validated. But this was
actually the first time that a new defense against defamation
was successfully used in this country. And that's a defense
that the story was actually in the public's interest. So
can you tell us a bit about what this actually means?
And I guess what impact this could have for future
cases of defamation?
S2 (14:38):
So there were two kind of important judgments throughout this
case for broader investigative journalism. One was around confidential sources.
So that was an application that was seen by a
separate judge. But essentially he upheld my right to maintain
confidentiality over a number of my sources. These were healthcare practitioners.
(15:00):
They were surgeons. They were prosthetists. They were rehab specialists
who had serious concerns about Doctor Almajiris but didn't want
to speak publicly because they were worried that he would
come after them.
S1 (15:11):
I mean, these are your whistleblowers, right?
S2 (15:13):
Yes. Yes, exactly. And there were dozens of them. But
what we had to prove there was that there was
a public interest in maintaining that confidentiality. And often courts
don't uphold that journalist privilege. But in this ruling by
Justice Bromwich, he found that there was a significant public
interest in protecting the free flow of information between healthcare
(15:35):
practitioners and journalists on matters of public interest. So the
second important part of this judgment is the public interest defence,
which was successful for the first time in this case.
And the judge made a number of important findings which
will be important to shape thinking of how we report
stories in the future. It all hinged on the reasonableness
(15:57):
of our conduct and the reasonableness of our belief that
these stories were in the public interest. And my belief
and the other journalists, Tom Steinfort and Natalie Clancy, all
had the belief that these stories were significantly in the
public interest because of the institutional failures of the medical
regulators to do their job to keep the public safe.
(16:19):
And the judge believed that these opinions were reasonably held.
So it's a great win for journalism in the sense
that the public interest defence can work. Unlike prior similar
defences like the qualified privilege defence, which basically failed almost
every time. So the future is a little bit brighter
for those public interest investigations.
S1 (16:41):
And just to clarify for listeners, so the qualified privilege
defence that used to be used when you said it
used to fail a lot, it meant that essentially, publications
were successfully sued for defamation, and it was sort of
like a deterrent, I guess, from them pursuing public interest journalism.
S2 (16:55):
Exactly. Up until recently, Australia has been a very easy
place for plaintiffs to sue for defamation. Sydney was known
as the defamation capital of the world because the defences
were pretty flimsy for media companies. But I think with
now the Ben Roberts-Smith victory, the Lehrmann victory and this victory,
(17:18):
hopefully it sends a warning signal to people who have
done the wrong thing and get exposed for it in
the press that they shouldn't sue for defamation.
S1 (17:31):
And you said before that this victory will shape future
stories of the way we cover, I guess, alleged wrongdoing.
So how? How will it shape future stories, do you think?
S2 (17:40):
Well, ultimately we'll see how that plays out. But I
think what's clear is that this judgment shows that public
interest journalism matters, and it will give editors, journalists and
lawyers the confidence to publish public interest investigations. Defamation has
historically been a tool used by powerful people with deep
(18:02):
pockets to stop the public knowing about important matters of
public interest, and that spans right across society, from politics
to business to, in this case, healthcare. So I hope
that this judgment empowers journalists and editors and lawyers to
continue publishing public interest investigations, because we've shown now that
(18:22):
they can be defended successfully.
S1 (18:24):
And I have to ask you a question that I
imagine a lot of listeners would be thinking right now,
which is where does this now leave Doctor Al Medeiros? Like,
can he still practice after this defamation judgment?
S2 (18:34):
Yes. So we've gone to all the hospitals he works
at for comment. Macquarie Uni Hospital is the largest hospital
that he's affiliated with, and they're standing by him. So
they say they're going to cooperate with any investigations that
are pending. Medibank has said it's very concerning. They have
a relationship with Doctor Al Medeiros through a short stay
(18:56):
hospital at Macquarie University Hospital. So there are a number
of investigations pending, but it seems for now that Macquarie
Hospital is maintaining that it has high standards and Doctor
Al Medeiros is welcome there.
S1 (19:09):
And do we know what sort of surgeries he's still performing?
S2 (19:12):
Yes. So I mean he has no restrictions currently on
his practice. So technically he could be performing the full
scale of operations that he always has, including hip and
knee replacements or osseointegration surgeries. But a new area that
I read about in a mamma mia article recently that
he's entering into is a very controversial part of healthcare
(19:36):
known as cosmetic limb lengthening. And so he was quoted
in the article in Mamma mia! Saying that women more
and more now are wanting cosmetic limb lengthening, which is
an invasive procedure. And he was quoted as saying, citing
psychological studies that say shorter people are bullied at school.
(19:56):
And this is why these types of procedures should be considered. Now,
surgeons I've spoken to say these again, are alarming public
statements for a doctor in our country to be making.
And there are real questions that remain for what the
medical regulators are doing, whether they're overseeing this practice and
what ramifications there will be after this judgment that has
(20:17):
made damning findings about his practice.
S1 (20:19):
Well, like you say, these are damning findings that have
been made against him. So what has Doctor Medeiros said
about this?
S2 (20:26):
He posted a social media post on Facebook saying that
he's disappointed by the judgment and that he intends to appeal.
He said this was never about blocking transparency, but missing
from his statement is any apology to his patients. So
he still seems to me to be in a form
(20:47):
of denial that he's done anything wrong. And underneath his
post were many of his positive patients declaring their support
for him. But there was also the occasional patient who said,
you really harmed me. Why are you still fighting this?
And I did notice that those were quickly deleted, some
of those. But it intends that he's digging his heels in.
(21:08):
He may appeal. He may not. But he is so
far failed to acknowledge the errors of his practice.
S1 (21:14):
And so what has the response actually been from the
medical regulators like how can Almajiris continue practicing following this judgment,
which I do have to alert listeners? This was a
defamation judgment. This isn't a criminal court of law. But
tell us how this works.
S2 (21:28):
So both the medical regulators, the Hpsc and Ahpra, said
they are carefully considering the judgment. They're going through it
in detail and they'll decide their next steps. So at
this point, it doesn't look like they are launching an
investigation or committing to any kind of investigation, which in
my view is rather extraordinary.
S1 (21:50):
And I guess, just to wrap up, I mean, does
this mean that we should be checking into whether a
doctor who's about to operate on us or a loved
one has had any findings against them? And is there
somewhere we can check this?
S2 (22:03):
So there is a National Register published by Ahpra that
publishes the profiles of every registered practitioner in the country
that can publish things like conditions on someone's registration. But
what it doesn't publish is all the complaints that might
have been found to be validated behind the scenes. But
(22:24):
there is no conditions put in place, so a doctor
could have a long list of complaints against them, a
long list of medical negligence cases that have been settled
for large sums of money. But the public has no
idea about these. So in my view, there needs to
be much greater transparency around what kind of information is
(22:44):
published on that register. So the public has the information
they need to make decisions about their healthcare to make
informed decisions about their healthcare, which is the key thing here.
Right now, there is a lack of transparency that is
stopping people from having accurate information about the people who
operate on them, which is a significant responsibility for these people.
(23:07):
So right now, as it stands, with the register being,
in my view, woefully inadequate. Patients should always seek a
second opinion. They should always ask around to their friends
and colleagues about the doctor they intend to allow to
operate on them and get a sense through word of mouth.
Because in my view, at this stage, that's the best
we've got.
S1 (23:31):
Well, we know this has not been an easy process
for you, but we're so appreciated your work on this.
So thank you so much for your time.
S2 (23:40):
Thank you.
S1 (23:53):
Today's episode of The Morning Edition was produced by Josh towers,
with technical assistance by Bella Anne Sanchez. Our executive producer
is Tammy Mills. Tom McKendrick is our head of audio.
To listen to our episodes as soon as they drop,
follow the Morning Edition on Apple, Spotify, or wherever you
listen to podcasts. Our newsrooms are powered by subscriptions, so
(24:15):
to support independent journalism, visit The Age or smh.com.au. Subscribe
and to stay up to date, sign up to our
Morningedition newsletter to receive a summary of the day's most
important news in your inbox every morning. Links are in
the show. Notes. I'm Samantha Selinger. Morris. Thanks for listening.
From the newsrooms of the Sydney Morning Herald and The Age.
This is the morning edition. I'm Samantha Selinger Morris. It's Monday,
August 18th. For more than a decade of dazzling media coverage,
Doctor Munjed Al Muderis was lauded as a miracle worker
to some of the most vulnerable people in our community,
(00:23):
helping people to walk again. Against all odds, after losing
their limbs in accidents and war zones. This all came
crashing down after a months long investigation by reporter Charlotte Grieve,
who exposed allegations of treatment gone horribly wrong with patients
left disfigured, depressed and in excruciating pain with horrific medical complications. Today,
(00:50):
investigative reporter Charlotte Grieve on a recent landmark court case
that backfired on the surgeon and why, even after the
damning federal court judgment, Doctor Al Medeiros is still practicing. So, Charlotte,
let's get into who doctor Munjed al Muderis is, because
(01:13):
I think it's fair to say he had something of
a difficult start, I guess, for someone who then went
on to become one of the country's most acclaimed orthopaedic surgeons.
So tell us a little bit about who he is.
S2 (01:23):
Yeah. Doctor Amadeus has a fascinating life story, as documented
in his various memoirs. He came to Australia as a refugee,
and he spent almost a year in one of Australia's
most notorious immigration detention centres, Curtin, which is in the
Western Australian desert. When he was finally released from there,
(01:44):
he built a very successful career as an orthopedic surgeon.
He was most known for his practice in osseointegration surgery,
which is an invasive and fairly new procedure for amputees
that can have for the right people incredible benefits. It
can help people walk again. It can relieve the blisters
(02:07):
and chafing that come with traditional socket prosthetics. But it
also comes with immense risks. And how Doctor Madeira's portrayed
those risks to his patients is ultimately what got him
in trouble.
S1 (02:18):
Now we're going to get into how you really did
find yourself at the center of Doctor Madeira's story, which
is quite extraordinary. But before we get into that, can
you just tell us how you first heard about the
orthopedic surgeon?
S2 (02:30):
Absolutely. So, yeah, new stories come from any number of places.
They come from sources, from tips, from whistleblowers, from documents. Uh,
in this case, this story came from a conversation with
my father. He's an amputee, and he consulted with Doctor
Al Medeiros in 2018. Now, he didn't go ahead with
the surgery, but he was warned during that process that
(02:53):
Doctor Medeiros mistreats his patients. And that really stuck in
the back of my mind for years, and I thought
if I ever had the opportunity, I'd take a closer look. Now,
the personal side of this story is something that I
have written about extensively in a book that I'm working on,
that's supposed to come out in February 2026. It's a
(03:14):
quite personal memoir, which is an unusual place for journalists
to be at times, but I'm really proud to have
the opportunity to tell that story properly.
S1 (03:24):
Well, I know you wrote in one of your stories
that a Sydney surgeon told you everyone has a story
about Madeiras, and he didn't mean that in a positive way.
And as part of your initial investigation, you spoke with
former and current patients of the doctor from all over
around the world, as well as medical staff and whistleblowers.
But I really want you to tell us the story
of one particular patient, Leah Mooney.
S2 (03:46):
Yeah, Leah Mooney is an amazing woman. I've got to
know her and her family very well throughout this experience,
but she was one of Doctor Madeiras early patients. She
badly broke her leg during a skiing incident in 2011,
(04:06):
and she was treated by Doctor Al Medeiros. He operated
on her leg and when she came out of that surgery,
it protruded violently to one side and all of her
family were saying, this doesn't look right. Can you do something?
And then he falsely misrepresented to her and the family
that he needed to do a second surgery as part
(04:26):
of a planned two stage surgery. Now, that was a lie.
It always was a lie. But in any event, the
second surgery went ahead and after that Leah developed an
infection which had devastating consequences. She ended up suing doctor
Al Medeiros for medical negligence and got a $1.75 million payout,
(04:49):
but her leg is still damaged permanently to this day
from his failure to diagnose that infection.
S1 (04:56):
If I understand this correctly, your story indicated that another surgeon,
I think, was quite shocked by the infection that he
or she found in her leg once. Liam Mooney subsequently
went to another doctor. Right. And found that I think
he was quite surprised that Doctor Medeiros had not seen
the severity of this infection. Is that right?
S2 (05:13):
Exactly. The infection was very far progressed to an alarming degree,
and this doctor who treated Leah subsequently couldn't understand why
he didn't investigate. She had all the symptoms of infection.
Her leg was passing, it was red. It was swollen.
Various doctors had raised with Doctor Medeiros specifically, they were
(05:34):
concerned about infection and he aggressively dismissed them. He was
rude to them and he told them things like osteomyelitis
is not a term we like to use in orthopedic surgery.
So it was quite an extraordinary reaction to what should
be something that doctors take very seriously. Any sign of
infection should be investigated properly immediately, and that simply didn't
(05:56):
happen here.
S1 (06:00):
And did he just deny that there was any infection?
Is that is that what he said?
S2 (06:04):
Yes. And in fact, he initially blamed the crookedness of
her leg on the plate that he inserted. But when
the next doctor opened her up and saw the plate,
he said, there's nothing to do with it. It's not
the plate, it's the application of the plate. So not
only did Doctor Almajiris fail to diagnose the infection, he
(06:24):
failed to conduct the initial surgery in an appropriate manner.
It's really devastating the impact that this treatment has had
on her. Leah Mooney was a very active person prior
to this accident, and while her leg break was bad,
Doctor Almajiris treatment of her made it irreversibly worse. So
(06:49):
that was one part, but the other part that really
impacted Leah and other patients Patience was just the way
that he dismissed her concerns time and time again. The
way he lied to her about the surgeries that he
was performing, and the way he just did not take
her concerns seriously. It made her doubt herself. It made
her doubt the whole medical system. And it really eroded
(07:10):
trust in Australia's healthcare system, which is a really unfortunate situation.
S1 (07:20):
And now, the first story that you had about these
allegations against Al Muderis was published in 2022. So what
happened after that, and how did the doctor himself react
to it?
S2 (07:30):
His reaction was incredibly defensive from the very beginning. He
has always denied that he has done anything wrong. He
has blamed his patients. He has effectively gone to war
with his patients, accusing them of lying. One he called
through his counsel, a lying fantasist, which the judge found
(07:51):
was an extremely disrespectful thing for a doctor to say,
let alone about their own patient. So he's had this
scorched earth mentality from the very beginning, and that's very
reflective of the findings, the credit findings that the judge
ultimately made on Doctor Al Medeiros, as someone who simply
is not able to accept that he's done anything wrong,
(08:13):
despite mountains of evidence against him and his determination to
lie in the face of plain documents. So he applied
that approach to the media. He went on the attack.
He said the stories were false. He said the patients
were lying. He briefed through his lawyers or him personally, uh,
News Corp papers to denigrate our witnesses, to denigrate the
(08:36):
patients and to denigrate myself and my father. So he
had a multi-pronged attack on me, the patients, our journalism
and our company. And ultimately he was found to be
the liar.
S1 (08:50):
Well, let's get to this attack, really that you sustained
and lots of other people have sustained because you keep
mentioning the judge. And of course, there was a judge
involved because he sued nine, the company we work for,
for defamation, alleging that the stories that you wrote did
defame him. And let's get into this, because as part
of the defamation action you were in, I've got to
say it's got to be an unenviable position of being
(09:11):
cross-examined in court by one of Australia's most well known
defamation lawyers, Sue Chrysanthou, just to remind the listeners she
is considered the defamation barrister in Australia. She's represented actor
Geoffrey Rush and Gina Rinehart and Lachlan Murdoch. Now this
is pretty extraordinary because you actually spent six days in
the witness stand being grilled by Chrysanthou. We actually think
(09:32):
that sets a record for the longest cross-examination of any
Australian journalist, even a day longer than mushroom murderer Aaron
Patterson was cross-examined. I mean, this sounds like an absolute nightmare.
Can you just take us through a little bit, I guess.
What's that like?
S2 (09:46):
Yeah, it was a it was not a nice situation
to be in, particularly the method and approach that Chrisanthou
took to the cross examination not just of me, but
to all the patients. It was extremely aggressive at times.
It was quite personal. So while I was understandably nervous
as anyone is getting in the witness box like that,
(10:09):
ultimately I didn't find it that challenging, to be honest,
because we had truth on our side. And you know,
when you're telling the truth, it's quite easy to answer questions.
And when she's putting theories to you that are simply
bizarre and beyond comprehension, it was quite easy to say, no,
you're not right. So while six days is an extraordinarily
(10:33):
long time and an exhausting experience for me and all
the other witnesses, ultimately it was easy because we were
telling the truth.
S1 (10:42):
Well, this takes us to the next issue, which is,
of course, the judgment that finally came back and it
was in your favour. So what did the judgement actually say,
and what did it mean to you? And I guess
his former patients.
S2 (10:53):
Yeah. So the judgment is 770 pages long. It came
out last Friday. I've been reading pretty much, you know,
as much of it as I can in the entire
time since it was released, as I go through it
in more and more detail. It's just emphatically proves time
and time again that all the patients were telling the truth.
(11:16):
It proves that Doctor Almajiris prioritized money, fame and numbers
over the safety of his patients.
S3 (11:26):
The smiles say it all.
S4 (11:28):
I'm happy that he's not going to cause damage to
people anymore. No one's going to suffer.
S3 (11:34):
Leah, a patient of Munjed Al Muderis, wanted to be
in court today for closure.
S4 (11:39):
It's so wonderful to finally get some justice.
S2 (11:42):
So broadly, the judge found there were unethical elements throughout
every stage of his practice. That's from the patients he
chose to operate, which he deemed inappropriate to the aftercare
he provided, where he ignored pleas for help to the
way that he solicited patients using high pressure sales tactics.
(12:04):
So it was a very comprehensive finding of unethical behavior
at every stage of his medical practice. One of the
more harrowing examples of poor patient selection was Mark Urquhart. Now,
he featured in our initial investigation.
S5 (12:22):
Good evening, and welcome to a special edition of 60 minutes.
I'm Tom Steinfort. Doctor Gerald Medeiros is always happy to
tell his life story. And why not?
S2 (12:32):
Doctor Almajiris performed a double amputation on him.
S5 (12:36):
Mark never set out to be an inspiration. In fact,
his dream has always been a simple one. There was
one thing that you wanted more than anything.
S6 (12:48):
To walk And to walk again for my kids and
for my daughter especially. You'll get me all emotional a minute,
but that one touches me.
S2 (13:01):
He was a paraplegic and osseointegration. After that, the judge
ruled this was an experimental surgery.
S6 (13:09):
He's that good at talking that you think that he's
going to be the one to fix all your problems? Well, no,
he doesn't. Makes them worse. Actually, for me.
S2 (13:21):
After the judgment, I got a call from Mark Urquhart
and he was tearing up as he spoke with me.
And he was so thankful to be believed and so
thankful for the opportunity to tell his story, which wasn't easy.
He suffered a lot in the witness box as well.
He suffered a lot throughout his life. And finally, for
a court to rule that him and all the other
(13:43):
patients were honest, credible, believable, good people meant the world.
And that really means the world to me.
S1 (13:57):
We'll be right back. And I really wanted to get
into the importance of this finding, you know, even more
broadly beyond, of course, your own vindication and the vindication
of the former patients who have suffered and, you know,
they weren't believed. And, of course, it must be, you know,
hugely gratifying on some level. Of course, to now finally
(14:18):
be believed or have their experiences validated. But this was
actually the first time that a new defense against defamation
was successfully used in this country. And that's a defense
that the story was actually in the public's interest. So
can you tell us a bit about what this actually means?
And I guess what impact this could have for future
cases of defamation?
S2 (14:38):
So there were two kind of important judgments throughout this
case for broader investigative journalism. One was around confidential sources.
So that was an application that was seen by a
separate judge. But essentially he upheld my right to maintain
confidentiality over a number of my sources. These were healthcare practitioners.
(15:00):
They were surgeons. They were prosthetists. They were rehab specialists
who had serious concerns about Doctor Almajiris but didn't want
to speak publicly because they were worried that he would
come after them.
S1 (15:11):
I mean, these are your whistleblowers, right?
S2 (15:13):
Yes. Yes, exactly. And there were dozens of them. But
what we had to prove there was that there was
a public interest in maintaining that confidentiality. And often courts
don't uphold that journalist privilege. But in this ruling by
Justice Bromwich, he found that there was a significant public
interest in protecting the free flow of information between healthcare
(15:35):
practitioners and journalists on matters of public interest. So the
second important part of this judgment is the public interest defence,
which was successful for the first time in this case.
And the judge made a number of important findings which
will be important to shape thinking of how we report
stories in the future. It all hinged on the reasonableness
(15:57):
of our conduct and the reasonableness of our belief that
these stories were in the public interest. And my belief
and the other journalists, Tom Steinfort and Natalie Clancy, all
had the belief that these stories were significantly in the
public interest because of the institutional failures of the medical
regulators to do their job to keep the public safe.
(16:19):
And the judge believed that these opinions were reasonably held.
So it's a great win for journalism in the sense
that the public interest defence can work. Unlike prior similar
defences like the qualified privilege defence, which basically failed almost
every time. So the future is a little bit brighter
for those public interest investigations.
S1 (16:41):
And just to clarify for listeners, so the qualified privilege
defence that used to be used when you said it
used to fail a lot, it meant that essentially, publications
were successfully sued for defamation, and it was sort of
like a deterrent, I guess, from them pursuing public interest journalism.
S2 (16:55):
Exactly. Up until recently, Australia has been a very easy
place for plaintiffs to sue for defamation. Sydney was known
as the defamation capital of the world because the defences
were pretty flimsy for media companies. But I think with
now the Ben Roberts-Smith victory, the Lehrmann victory and this victory,
(17:18):
hopefully it sends a warning signal to people who have
done the wrong thing and get exposed for it in
the press that they shouldn't sue for defamation.
S1 (17:31):
And you said before that this victory will shape future
stories of the way we cover, I guess, alleged wrongdoing.
So how? How will it shape future stories, do you think?
S2 (17:40):
Well, ultimately we'll see how that plays out. But I
think what's clear is that this judgment shows that public
interest journalism matters, and it will give editors, journalists and
lawyers the confidence to publish public interest investigations. Defamation has
historically been a tool used by powerful people with deep
(18:02):
pockets to stop the public knowing about important matters of
public interest, and that spans right across society, from politics
to business to, in this case, healthcare. So I hope
that this judgment empowers journalists and editors and lawyers to
continue publishing public interest investigations, because we've shown now that
(18:22):
they can be defended successfully.
S1 (18:24):
And I have to ask you a question that I
imagine a lot of listeners would be thinking right now,
which is where does this now leave Doctor Al Medeiros? Like,
can he still practice after this defamation judgment?
S2 (18:34):
Yes. So we've gone to all the hospitals he works
at for comment. Macquarie Uni Hospital is the largest hospital
that he's affiliated with, and they're standing by him. So
they say they're going to cooperate with any investigations that
are pending. Medibank has said it's very concerning. They have
a relationship with Doctor Al Medeiros through a short stay
(18:56):
hospital at Macquarie University Hospital. So there are a number
of investigations pending, but it seems for now that Macquarie
Hospital is maintaining that it has high standards and Doctor
Al Medeiros is welcome there.
S1 (19:09):
And do we know what sort of surgeries he's still performing?
S2 (19:12):
Yes. So I mean he has no restrictions currently on
his practice. So technically he could be performing the full
scale of operations that he always has, including hip and
knee replacements or osseointegration surgeries. But a new area that
I read about in a mamma mia article recently that
he's entering into is a very controversial part of healthcare
(19:36):
known as cosmetic limb lengthening. And so he was quoted
in the article in Mamma mia! Saying that women more
and more now are wanting cosmetic limb lengthening, which is
an invasive procedure. And he was quoted as saying, citing
psychological studies that say shorter people are bullied at school.
(19:56):
And this is why these types of procedures should be considered. Now,
surgeons I've spoken to say these again, are alarming public
statements for a doctor in our country to be making.
And there are real questions that remain for what the
medical regulators are doing, whether they're overseeing this practice and
what ramifications there will be after this judgment that has
(20:17):
made damning findings about his practice.
S1 (20:19):
Well, like you say, these are damning findings that have
been made against him. So what has Doctor Medeiros said
about this?
S2 (20:26):
He posted a social media post on Facebook saying that
he's disappointed by the judgment and that he intends to appeal.
He said this was never about blocking transparency, but missing
from his statement is any apology to his patients. So
he still seems to me to be in a form
(20:47):
of denial that he's done anything wrong. And underneath his
post were many of his positive patients declaring their support
for him. But there was also the occasional patient who said,
you really harmed me. Why are you still fighting this?
And I did notice that those were quickly deleted, some
of those. But it intends that he's digging his heels in.
(21:08):
He may appeal. He may not. But he is so
far failed to acknowledge the errors of his practice.
S1 (21:14):
And so what has the response actually been from the
medical regulators like how can Almajiris continue practicing following this judgment,
which I do have to alert listeners? This was a
defamation judgment. This isn't a criminal court of law. But
tell us how this works.
S2 (21:28):
So both the medical regulators, the Hpsc and Ahpra, said
they are carefully considering the judgment. They're going through it
in detail and they'll decide their next steps. So at
this point, it doesn't look like they are launching an
investigation or committing to any kind of investigation, which in
my view is rather extraordinary.
S1 (21:50):
And I guess, just to wrap up, I mean, does
this mean that we should be checking into whether a
doctor who's about to operate on us or a loved
one has had any findings against them? And is there
somewhere we can check this?
S2 (22:03):
So there is a National Register published by Ahpra that
publishes the profiles of every registered practitioner in the country
that can publish things like conditions on someone's registration. But
what it doesn't publish is all the complaints that might
have been found to be validated behind the scenes. But
(22:24):
there is no conditions put in place, so a doctor
could have a long list of complaints against them, a
long list of medical negligence cases that have been settled
for large sums of money. But the public has no
idea about these. So in my view, there needs to
be much greater transparency around what kind of information is
(22:44):
published on that register. So the public has the information
they need to make decisions about their healthcare to make
informed decisions about their healthcare, which is the key thing here.
Right now, there is a lack of transparency that is
stopping people from having accurate information about the people who
operate on them, which is a significant responsibility for these people.
(23:07):
So right now, as it stands, with the register being,
in my view, woefully inadequate. Patients should always seek a
second opinion. They should always ask around to their friends
and colleagues about the doctor they intend to allow to
operate on them and get a sense through word of mouth.
Because in my view, at this stage, that's the best
we've got.
S1 (23:31):
Well, we know this has not been an easy process
for you, but we're so appreciated your work on this.
So thank you so much for your time.
S2 (23:40):
Thank you.
S1 (23:53):
Today's episode of The Morning Edition was produced by Josh towers,
with technical assistance by Bella Anne Sanchez. Our executive producer
is Tammy Mills. Tom McKendrick is our head of audio.
To listen to our episodes as soon as they drop,
follow the Morning Edition on Apple, Spotify, or wherever you
listen to podcasts. Our newsrooms are powered by subscriptions, so
(24:15):
to support independent journalism, visit The Age or smh.com.au. Subscribe
and to stay up to date, sign up to our
Morningedition newsletter to receive a summary of the day's most
important news in your inbox every morning. Links are in
the show. Notes. I'm Samantha Selinger. Morris. Thanks for listening.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
My Favorite Murder with Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark
My Favorite Murder is a true crime comedy podcast hosted by Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark. Each week, Karen and Georgia share compelling true crimes and hometown stories from friends and listeners. Since MFM launched in January of 2016, Karen and Georgia have shared their lifelong interest in true crime and have covered stories of infamous serial killers like the Night Stalker, mysterious cold cases, captivating cults, incredible survivor stories and important events from history like the Tulsa race massacre of 1921. My Favorite Murder is part of the Exactly Right podcast network that provides a platform for bold, creative voices to bring to life provocative, entertaining and relatable stories for audiences everywhere. The Exactly Right roster of podcasts covers a variety of topics including historic true crime, comedic interviews and news, science, pop culture and more. Podcasts on the network include Buried Bones with Kate Winkler Dawson and Paul Holes, That's Messed Up: An SVU Podcast, This Podcast Will Kill You, Bananas and more.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.