Besieged Canberra orthopaedic surgeon Richard Hocking is being sued by two new patients for allegedly installing prosthetic hips incorrectly.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
The elderly women allege botched operations by Dr Hocking, pictured, at hospitals run by Calvary Health Care forced them to have the surgeries redone.
One of the women, aged 76, is also suing Calvary.
Dr Hocking's lawyer said the surgeon denied the allegations and would vigorously defend himself against the claims.
The first elderly woman complained of hip pain for more than 18 months after her surgery at Calvary John James Hospital in February 2010, according to claim documents lodged in the ACT Supreme Court.
Ten physiotherapy sessions did not get rid of the pain.
A second opinion from another surgeon allegedly revealed her prosthetic hip had been positioned wrongly during her initial operation.
The second woman who has filed a fresh case in court, also 76, says she could not care for her grandchildren because of alleged errors made by Dr Hocking. It is alleged the doctor fractured a part of her hip, called the greater trochanter, during the initial total right hip replacement surgery in December 2010.
Documents say the woman experienced severe pain and limited movement after being discharged.
It is alleged Dr Hocking did not diagnose the problem of the prosthetic being wrongly positioned or recommend effective treatment at five post-surgery consultations or after another surgery where he removed trochanteric grips or after an MRI scan.
Instead she claims he suggested physiotherapy and a cortisone injection which did not relieve her pain.
Almost two years after her initial surgery she had another operation to reposition the hip after she had received a second opinion and a CT scan which allegedly revealed her prosthesis had been wrongly positioned from the start.
The fresh cases add to the list of legal battles being fought by Dr Hocking who is appealing an ACT Medical Board decision to suspend him.
The local medical watchdog, which had previously placed restrictions on him over other matters, suspended him in May because it believed he posed a serious risk to the health and safety of the public.
The suspension was lifted and he has been allowed to practice under certain conditions for the past eight months while he appeals. ACT Health confirmed Dr Hocking continued to work at Canberra Hospital performing emergency and elective surgery consistent with his restrictions.
Patients in the two fresh cases are being represented by lawyer Anna Walsh from legal firm Maurice Blackburn which says it is handling 15 matters involving Dr Hocking.
Of these, Ms Walsh said she had started legal proceedings for five patients who range in age from eight to their mid-70s. One - filed in June and yet to be finalised - alleged a 15-year-old girl would need her hip replaced every decade for the rest of her life because of damage allegedly caused to her by Dr Hocking.
She was also suing Calvary Public Hospital.
Last year The Canberra Times received documents showing Dr Hocking had been investigated by the ACT Medical Board regarding an allegation he damaged a 69-year-old woman's femoral artery during hip replacement surgery at Calvary Private Hospital which meant she later needed the leg amputated.
The investigation's findings were not made public.
Dr Hocking settled a case out of court in 2013 with a former public servant, Kim Harstorff, who alleged he damaged her left sciatic nerve in March 2010. According to her lawyer, Ms Harstorff was satisfied with the way her legal matter was resolved.
In May, the board suspended the surgeon on the basis he gave unwarranted experimental treatment to a nine-year-old boy with a hip disorder.
Documents say Dr Hocking injected platelet-rich plasma into the boy's hip, a treatment he stood by as being safe.
A decision about his future will soon be handed down in the ACT Supreme Court.
Lawyers for the surgeon accused the medical board of suspending him without properly investigating allegations. They argued the decision to suspend him was unfair, biased, ''manifestly excessive'', that he was denied procedural fairness and that the complaint about the alleged experimental treatment was submitted unlawfully.
