NSW surgeon banned for six months after botched colonoscopies and patient death

Consensus Summary

Dr Liu-Ming Schmidt, a surgeon with 17 years of experience, has been banned from practising medicine for six months after the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal found her guilty of professional misconduct. The tribunal ruled that Schmidt’s treatment of 13 patients—including a fatal surgical error and missed cancer diagnoses—demonstrated a significant departure from accepted medical standards. Her actions led to the recall of nearly 2000 colonoscopy patients between 2018 and 2022, with 1084 undergoing repeat procedures that identified seven cases of colorectal cancer. The most severe incident involved Schmidt operating on the wrong end of a patient’s bowel in November 2019, causing a mechanical obstruction that contributed to the patient’s death. The tribunal described this as a ‘catastrophic error’ and criticised Schmidt’s failure to monitor the patient post-surgery or disclose the mistake to the family.

The case against Schmidt emerged after an investigation by the Health Care Complaints Commission (HCCC) in January 2023, which revealed systemic failures in her colonoscopy practices. Schmidt admitted to performing procedures in as little as five minutes—far below the recommended eight minutes for withdrawal alone—and failing to adequately capture images or reach the caecum, a critical section of the bowel. The tribunal heard evidence that her rushed colonoscopies likely led to missed lesions, including a 5.5-centimetre adenocarcinoma that was only detected three months after her February 2022 procedure. The HCCC had initially sought a one-year suspension, but the tribunal reduced it to six months, citing Schmidt’s efforts to address the concerns, including a year-long hiatus from practice and supervised recertification.

Schmidt’s defence centred on her extensive experience and regular reaccreditation, but the tribunal rejected this, stating her training would have required more thorough colonoscopy techniques. The Guardian reported that Schmidt claimed her methods were standard practice, though experts disagreed, emphasising that rapid withdrawal times increase the risk of missing abnormalities. Meanwhile, the ABC highlighted inconsistencies in Schmidt’s testimony, noting she sometimes blamed others for her errors. The tribunal also criticised her post-operative care, particularly in the fatal case, where she failed to adequately monitor the patient despite knowing he was acutely unwell. Schmidt’s conduct was described as ‘unacceptable’ in multiple instances, including her failure to disclose the surgical error to the patient’s family.

While all sources agree on the core facts—Schmidt’s ban, the fatal surgery, and the missed cancer diagnoses—some details vary. The Guardian specifies the fatal error occurred in December 2019, whereas SMH, ABC, and THEAGE place it in November 2019. The ABC also notes Schmidt was ordered to pay the HCCC’s legal costs, a detail absent from the other reports. Additionally, the ABC frames the case as part of over a dozen complaints, while the other sources focus on the 13 patients central to the tribunal’s findings. Despite these differences, the consensus is clear: Schmidt’s negligence had severe consequences, and her conduct fell far below professional standards. The tribunal’s decision underscores the gravity of her actions, even as it acknowledged her attempts at self-improvement.

Looking ahead, Schmidt’s registration will return with strict conditions, including supervised practice and limited surgical procedures. The tribunal’s ruling sends a strong message about the importance of thoroughness in medical procedures, particularly in high-stakes areas like colonoscopies and emergency surgery. While the case has been resolved, the fallout—including the recall of thousands of patients and the discovery of multiple cancers—highlights systemic vulnerabilities in oversight and training. The HCCC’s involvement and the coroner’s ruling on the patient’s death further underscore the need for accountability in medical practice. For now, Schmidt’s career remains on hold, and her future in medicine will depend on her ability to meet the tribunal’s stringent conditions.