It argues that the suspension was necessary because the safety-related allegations are serious and that the action would maintain the integrity of an independent investigation.

The allegations against Canberra Hospital's Dr Muayad Alasady include him saying he "didn't give a shit about the pacemaker" for a patient, repeatedly acting in an unreasonable manner towards cardiology unit staff, and leaving a patient anaesthetised on a table for half an hour before he attended the procedure.

Dr Alasady, an electrophysiologist at the hospital's cardiology unit, in late July began Federal Court action against the government, the health services' chief executive David Peffer and the territory's Public Sector Standards Commissioner Ian McPhee.

Dr Alasady argues the investigation of him is biased, has denied him procedural fairness under his enterprise agreement, and has caused him reputational harm.

He argues the investigation has been mishandled and the allegations against him are historical, vague in nature, unparticularised, and previously deemed not to be worth pursuing because they were not in the public interest.

Court documents state that following a 2020 review of the unit's culture issues related to clinical safety and patient care, Mr Peffer last October decided that a preliminary assessment was needed and that a private legal team would conduct it.

In March, the assessment was given to the health services, prompting the suspension of Dr Alasady.

Another legal firm is conducting the investigation and in June, lawyers wrote to Dr Alasady setting out the allegations by eight people, including nurses and senior personnel.

MORE HEALTH NEWS

The allegations include that Dr Alasady had conflicts of interest with his private practice and that he verbally attacked other employees.

Patients also provided allegations about him behaving in an unreasonable manner between 2017-18 and March this year.

In May, the Public Sector Standards Commissioner, Mr McPhee, delegated or purported to delegate his powers to three health services' executives, including Mr Peffer, in relation to making findings of misconduct.

Dr Alasady argues that Mr Peffer had bias or an apprehension of bias against him.

He cited Mr Peffer last November providing comments to The Canberra Times about making changes to senior roles, as well as sending a message with the heading "Improving our workplace culture" to all staff.

"We're drawing a line in the sand. Bullying, racism, and sexual harassment are behaviours that will earn you a one-way ticket to your next opportunity, and that won't be with CHS," the message reads.

The respondents, in a document recently filed in court, defended the decision to investigate and suspend Dr Alasady, saying he was informed that the initial assessment recommended further investigation.

The plaintiff was also told about the possible sanctions.

The respondents argue that the decision was in accordance with the 2021 version of the enterprise agreement and that the plaintiff would have a chance to respond to the allegations at an interview.

The respondents argue that the consideration of suspension was "because of the serious nature of the allegations (including that the allegations related to the safety of other CHS employees and patients)".

It was also based on maintaining the integrity of the investigation and to avoid the potential for any undue pressure to be applied to witnesses and potential witnesses.

Dr Alasady was informed that prior to imposing any such action, he was given seven days to provide any written response for consideration.

The respondents deny that the suspension has caused the plaintiff reputational harm and denied him the chance to practise his profession with the government.

They also deny the claims that the suspension breached the enterprise agreement and that they did not afford the plaintiff procedural fairness.

The respondents deny Mr Peffer being biased against Dr Alasady and they argue against the relief sought, which includes the suspension being revoked and an order to stop the investigation.

The plaintiff, who recently retained a high-profile lawyer, is also seeking that a pecuniary penalty be imposed upon the government and be paid to him.

The matter is next listed in court on November 4.

The Canberra Times in April revealed that some senior cardiology staff were stood down in relation to bullying allegations.

Our journalists work hard to provide local, up-to-date news to the community. This is how you can continue to access our trusted content: