The NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal) has suspended a specialist surgeon’s registration for six months following serious deficiencies in her surgical care, colonoscopy procedures, post-operative management and record-keeping.
In issue
Dr Liu-Ming Schmidt was found guilty of professional misconduct and unsatisfactory professional conduct relating to her alleged substandard management of 13 patients at Albury Wodonga Health. The NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal found that the complaints put forward by the Health Care Complaints Commission (HCCC) were proven and accordingly suspended Dr Schmidt’s registration for six months, with conditions placed on her practice following her suspension period.
The background
In 2008, Dr Schmidt obtained a Fellowship of the Royal Australian College of Surgeons, and subsequently began working as a Visiting Medical Officer in general surgery at Albury Hospital and Wodonga Hospital. On 11 January 2023, the Medical Council informed Dr Schmidt that they had received numerous complaints relating to issues raised in these proceedings.
This resulted in an immediate action hearing (also referred to as a section 150 hearing) being convened. The Medical Council advised that following the proceedings, they would decide whether to suspend or cancel Dr Schmidt’s registration. The Council provided Dr Schmidt with the option of consenting to a condition not to practise medicine, rather than attending the section 150 proceedings. Dr Schmidt consented to the condition and did not work for one year.
At the Tribunal, the HCCC sought an order to suspend Dr Schmidt’s registration for one year based on her treatment and care of 13 patients between 2015 and 2022.
In the case of Patient A, Dr Schmidt had performed several colonoscopies - but failed to detect an adenocarcinoma of the caecum. This was only established when another doctor performed a colonoscopy three months later.
Patient B presented to hospital with a bowel perforation and was placed under the care of Dr Schmidt. While forming a stoma, Dr Schmidt made a ‘catastrophic error’ by bringing out the wrong end of the bowel. This caused a complete mechanical bowel obstruction, preventing the stoma from passing faecal material. Patient B died four weeks later, and his death became the subject of a coronial inquest.
Additionally, Dr Schmidt failed to provide appropriate post-operative care to Patient B, including:
- failing to review the patient on a regular basis
- failing to disclose to the patient that an error had been made, and
- failing to adequately explain to the patient why corrective surgery was required.
Deputy State Coroner Kennedy found that Dr Schmidt’s post-operative management of Patient B reflected a ‘concerning degree of disinterest and detachment’.
Patient D presented to hospital after being diagnosed with a large bowel obstruction caused by herniation of the large bowel. Expert evidence contended that the patient should have been treated as an urgent, if not an emergency surgical situation, warranting prompt surgery.
The Tribunal found that Dr Schmidt:
- failed to conduct an in-person assessment of the patient, and
- failed to urgently arrange for the patient to be transferred.
In relation to eight other patients, the HCCC alleged that Dr Schmidt had:
- failed to take adequate time to perform colonoscopies, and subsequently
- failed to adequately capture images showing sections of the caecum.
The Tribunal accepted expert evidence, explaining that a rapid withdrawal time will lead to lesions being missed, and concluded that Dr Schmidt took too little time to conduct the colonoscopies.
Additionally, the Tribunal found that Dr Schmidt had failed to keep adequate patient records.
The Tribunal’s decision
Following concerns about Dr Schmidt’s colonoscopy practice, Safer Care Victoria recalled almost 2,000 patients who had undergone colonoscopies performed by her. Around 1,000 of those patients had undergone repeat colonoscopies. Of these, seven patients were diagnosed with cancer.
The Tribunal noted that the failed diagnoses could not necessarily be attributed to any failure by Dr Schmidt, but criticised her lack of insight and tendency to deflect blame, including by insisting that she had conducted colonoscopies in accordance with the way she had been trained for the past decade.
The Tribunal noted that:
The Tribunal concluded that Dr Schmidt’s cursory way of conducting colonoscopies, and her failure to appropriately manage and care for her patients was serious, and fell below the requisite standard.
However, the Tribunal took into consideration Dr Schmidt’s:
- records of self-reflection
- completion of further education and CPD, and
- active discussion of her performance with her peers.
The Tribunal decided to place a six-month period of suspension on Dr Schmidt’s registration. The Tribunal also placed several conditions on her registration, to be implemented following the suspension period. These conditions included mandatory supervision meetings regarding clinical indications for surgery, patient selection and performing appropriate colonoscopy procedures.
Implications for you
The practitioner’s suspension reflected the cumulative effect of several serious failures in her clinical practice and professional conduct. These included:
- serious and repeated departures from accepted clinical standards
- making a catastrophic surgical error and providing insufficient post-operative care
- inadequate record-keeping
- a failure to disclose, and
- a lack of insight.
This decision reiterates that the paramount objective of disciplinary orders is to protect the health and safety of the public by ensuring that only health practitioners who are suitably trained and qualified to practise in a competent and ethical manner are registered.
The decision also highlights the importance of showing insight throughout the disciplinary process. A failure to do so can, and frequently does, lead to more restrictive protective orders being imposed.
Health Care Complaints Commission v Schmidt [2026] NSWCATOD 98
