http://www.todayonline.com/singapor...wn-no-remorse-says-judge-about-court-decision
SINGAPORE — The Raffles Hospital surgeon who was suspended from practice for not granting adequate hospitalisation leave to an injured construction worker was “advancing the interests of the employer” and wanted the patient back at work as early as possible.
On top of that, Dr Wong Him Choon also showed no remorse and sought to lay the blame on the patient, Mr Fan Mao Bing, for failing to manage his recovery adequately.
These aggravating factors were cited by the Court of Three Judges in its written grounds of decision on the landmark case, which was released on Wednesday (July 27).
Explaining the court’s decision in a 53-page judgment, Judge of Appeal Andrew Phang had strong words for Dr Wong, noting that the evidence showed that he had chosen not to give the patient medical leave for “a multitude of extraneous, less than proper, as well as non-medical considerations”.
Dr Wong’s lawyer, Mr S Selvaraj, had sought to make the point that the orthopaedic surgeon, who had “dealt with foreign workers”, had good reason to suspect that Mr Fan, by being a foreign construction worker, would not be adequately rested if he was not supervised.
Dr Wong, when giving evidence, had also said: “What’s the difference of him going to office and him hanging around Geylang, which he obviously has gone several time(s) ... If when [sic] you put the patient in the dormitory there is no supervised rest.”
Commenting on the argument made by Mr Selvaraj, Justice Phang, who heard the case with Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon and Judge of Appeal Chao Hick Tin, said: “In our judgment, this was an illegitimate and outrageous submission that should never have been made before this court.”
He also said Dr Wong’s testimony suggested that the surgeon thought foreign construction workers were to be “treated differently from other patients”. “We wish to emphasise in no uncertain terms that this is utterly wrong. The doctor’s first priority is to ensure the patient’s care and welfare,” said Justice Phang.
The case dates back to Sept 4, 2011, when Dr Wong operated on Mr Fan’s right hand, after the Chinese national fell from a height at a construction site and sustained hand and forearm fractures. He then issued a medical certificate for two days — which covered Mr Fan’s hospital stay from Sept 3 and 4 — and certified him fit for light duties for a month thereafter.
Mr Fan continued to experience pain thereafter, and migrant worker group Humanitarian Organisation for Migration Economics later filed a complaint with medical watchdog Singapore Medical Council (SMC).
A disciplinary tribunal acquitted Dr Wong on the basis that SMC had not proven beyond reasonable doubt that Dr Wong’s departure from the “applicable standard of conduct was intentional and deliberate”.
After the SMC appealed against this, the Court of Three Judges, which hears appeals against disciplinary tribunal decisions, dismissed the acquittal and suspended Dr Wong from practice for six months in May.
Justice Phang said Dr Wong’s failure to grant Mr Fan medical leave, at the very least till his post-operative review three days after surgery, showed a “wilful disregard for (Mr Fan’s) welfare and interests, and in particular, his need for proper rest and rehabilitation”.
This is despite the fact that he said the hospital granted patients medical leave until the post-operative appointment.
When asked why he did not do so for Mr Fan, Dr Wong “suggested — incredibly, in our view — that this was because he wanted to give the patient the chance to try whether there was anything he could do at work and not give the patient the impression that his condition was serious”, noted Justice Phang.
Dr Wong, who also certified Mr Fan fit for light work without establishing if such duties were available at the firm where he worked, showed an “indifference” to Mr Fan’s welfare by leaving it to the employer to decide the extent to which he should rest, and appeared keen in “maximising the value that the employer could extract” from him, Justice Phang said.
Justice Phang also said the disciplinary tribunal, in acquitting Dr Wong, had “slipped into error” by focusing on whether the surgeon had knowledge that light duties were unavailable at his workplace.
Raffles Hospital did not respond to TODAY’s request for comment by press time.
SINGAPORE — The Raffles Hospital surgeon who was suspended from practice for not granting adequate hospitalisation leave to an injured construction worker was “advancing the interests of the employer” and wanted the patient back at work as early as possible.
On top of that, Dr Wong Him Choon also showed no remorse and sought to lay the blame on the patient, Mr Fan Mao Bing, for failing to manage his recovery adequately.
These aggravating factors were cited by the Court of Three Judges in its written grounds of decision on the landmark case, which was released on Wednesday (July 27).
Explaining the court’s decision in a 53-page judgment, Judge of Appeal Andrew Phang had strong words for Dr Wong, noting that the evidence showed that he had chosen not to give the patient medical leave for “a multitude of extraneous, less than proper, as well as non-medical considerations”.
Dr Wong’s lawyer, Mr S Selvaraj, had sought to make the point that the orthopaedic surgeon, who had “dealt with foreign workers”, had good reason to suspect that Mr Fan, by being a foreign construction worker, would not be adequately rested if he was not supervised.
Dr Wong, when giving evidence, had also said: “What’s the difference of him going to office and him hanging around Geylang, which he obviously has gone several time(s) ... If when [sic] you put the patient in the dormitory there is no supervised rest.”
Commenting on the argument made by Mr Selvaraj, Justice Phang, who heard the case with Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon and Judge of Appeal Chao Hick Tin, said: “In our judgment, this was an illegitimate and outrageous submission that should never have been made before this court.”
He also said Dr Wong’s testimony suggested that the surgeon thought foreign construction workers were to be “treated differently from other patients”. “We wish to emphasise in no uncertain terms that this is utterly wrong. The doctor’s first priority is to ensure the patient’s care and welfare,” said Justice Phang.
The case dates back to Sept 4, 2011, when Dr Wong operated on Mr Fan’s right hand, after the Chinese national fell from a height at a construction site and sustained hand and forearm fractures. He then issued a medical certificate for two days — which covered Mr Fan’s hospital stay from Sept 3 and 4 — and certified him fit for light duties for a month thereafter.
Mr Fan continued to experience pain thereafter, and migrant worker group Humanitarian Organisation for Migration Economics later filed a complaint with medical watchdog Singapore Medical Council (SMC).
A disciplinary tribunal acquitted Dr Wong on the basis that SMC had not proven beyond reasonable doubt that Dr Wong’s departure from the “applicable standard of conduct was intentional and deliberate”.
After the SMC appealed against this, the Court of Three Judges, which hears appeals against disciplinary tribunal decisions, dismissed the acquittal and suspended Dr Wong from practice for six months in May.
Justice Phang said Dr Wong’s failure to grant Mr Fan medical leave, at the very least till his post-operative review three days after surgery, showed a “wilful disregard for (Mr Fan’s) welfare and interests, and in particular, his need for proper rest and rehabilitation”.
This is despite the fact that he said the hospital granted patients medical leave until the post-operative appointment.
When asked why he did not do so for Mr Fan, Dr Wong “suggested — incredibly, in our view — that this was because he wanted to give the patient the chance to try whether there was anything he could do at work and not give the patient the impression that his condition was serious”, noted Justice Phang.
Dr Wong, who also certified Mr Fan fit for light work without establishing if such duties were available at the firm where he worked, showed an “indifference” to Mr Fan’s welfare by leaving it to the employer to decide the extent to which he should rest, and appeared keen in “maximising the value that the employer could extract” from him, Justice Phang said.
Justice Phang also said the disciplinary tribunal, in acquitting Dr Wong, had “slipped into error” by focusing on whether the surgeon had knowledge that light duties were unavailable at his workplace.
Raffles Hospital did not respond to TODAY’s request for comment by press time.
