This information sheet concerns news of a recent settlement involving Professor Charlie Teo, neurosurgeon, following legal action by the family of a late Western Australian mother. This follows a previous Professional Standards Committee Inquiry into Dr Teo’s conduct. For background on the earlier inquiry, please see our previous article: Professor Charles (“Charlie”) Teo.
Background
Professor Teo:
- was found to have performed surgeries in cases where the risk outweighed any potential benefit.
- has faced allegations of failing to obtain proper informed consent from patients.
- has had restrictions imposed on his Australian medical registration due to findings of unsatisfactory professional conduct.
- has continued to practice internationally in countries such as China, Spain, Germany, India, and Brazil.
Civil Claim – Background and Settlement
On 12 March 2025, the NSW Supreme Court confirmed that Professor Charlie Teo had settled a civil claim brought by the family of Ebony Thurston. Ms Thurston, a mother from Perth, underwent brain surgery performed by Professor Teo in 2018 after being diagnosed with glioblastoma on the brain stem. She passed away in April 2019 without ever fully recovering from the procedure.
The lawsuit, initiated by Ms Thurston’s widower Aran Thurston and their three children, sought damages for mental harm allegedly caused by Professor Teo’s medical advice and the outcome of the operation. Court documents revealed that the family claimed that:
- The risks associated with the surgery were understated.
- Professor Teo provided unrealistic expectations regarding the potential benefits of the procedure.
- He advised Ms Thurston against chemotherapy and radiation, which were deemed appropriate treatment options by other neurosurgeons.
- The surgery resulted in a rapid deterioration of Ms Thurston’s health and diminished her ability to spend meaningful time with her family before her passing.
A Statement of Claim released by the court alleged that Dr Teo owed the plaintiffs a duty to exercise reasonable care and skill in providing medical services to Ms Thurston, ensuring that psychiatric injury was not caused to her family. The court documents further stated that Dr Teo knew, or ought to have known, of the risk of serious injury or death if reasonable care was not exercised in the treatment and management of her condition.
Justice David Davies noted that the case had reached an early settlement, with Mr Thurston and his adult daughter initially agreeing to terms. The two younger children also recently settled, with their agreements requiring the Court’s approval. The financial terms of the settlement remain confidential, though court documents revealed that the family members had claimed more than $200,000 each, including for economic loss and general damages (such as loss of enjoyment of life, pain and suffering).
Dr Teo did not file a Defence in the proceedings due to the swift settlement. Justice Davies acknowledged that there was no fault in this regard and commended the parties for reaching an early resolution, allowing the younger plaintiffs to move forward with their lives.
Who is Charlie Teo?
Charlie Teo:
- is a neurosurgeon with a history of performing complex brain surgeries.
- was first registered to practise medicine in 1981, obtaining his MB.BS degree from the University of New South Wales (UNSW).
- has been a fellow of the Royal Australian College of Surgeons (RACS) since 1993.
- has held academic positions at UNSW, Duke University Medical Centre (USA), and Hanoi Medical University (Vietnam).
- was previously operating at Prince of Wales Private Hospital until restrictions were placed on his medical registration in Australia.
What Were the Complaints Against Charlie Teo?
The allegations identified by the Professional Standards Committee included that Professor Teo:
- decided to operate on patients where the risk outweighed any potential benefits.
- failed to obtain informed consent prior to surgery.
- charged an inappropriate $35,000 fee to one patient before surgery.
- spoke inappropriately to a patient’s family after an unsuccessful procedure.
What Did the Authorities Do to Protect the Public from Charlie Teo?
According to the NSW Professional Standards Committee decision issued on 12 July 2023:
- Professor Teo was found guilty of unsatisfactory professional conduct.
- He was formally reprimanded for his conduct.
- Restrictions were placed on his medical registration, requiring written permission and supervision before performing certain procedures.
- These restrictions apply across all Australian states and territories.
- Any variation of these conditions must be approved by the NSW Medical Council under the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (NSW).
What Can Patients Impacted by Charlie Teo Do?
Patients who have suffered adverse outcomes under the care of Professor Teo may have options for compensation:
Court Proceedings for Damages
Patients and families affected by medical malpractice or negligence may pursue legal claims for damages (financial compensation), which may include compensation for pain and suffering, medical expenses, and loss of income.
What Are the Steps in Making a Claim Against Charlie Teo?
Contact Us
We offer a free initial consultation to discuss your potential claim. We can advise whether your case has merit and outline the best course of action.
Obtain Your Relevant Documents
If your case has prospects of success, we will request and review all relevant medical records before advising on the next steps.
Court Proceedings
If necessary, we can initiate and handle court proceedings on your behalf, advocating for your right to compensation.
Are There Time Limits in Making a Claim Against Charlie Teo?
Yes, generally claims must be filed within three (3) years from the date you discovered injury, loss, or damage. However, in certain circumstances, the courts may grant exceptions. It is crucial to seek legal advice as soon as possible to protect your rights.
For more information or to discuss your situation, please contact us today.
DISCLAIMER
This article reflects the current law at the time of publication. It is intended for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The actual decisions in each case are summarised for general understanding. For specific legal guidance in relation to your situation, please consult with a qualified legal professional.
