12 DECEMBER 2025 4 NEWS ausdoc. com. au
12 DECEMBER 2025 4 NEWS ausdoc. com. au
Doctor fired for being rude loses $ 3.8m lawsuit
FROM PAGE 1 then in 2018, Primary IVF’ s general manager told the doctor that further negative feedback could see her terminated.
On the same day, a patient used Instagram to say that the doctor had“ made me feel shit about myself”.
She claimed that the doctor had blamed her weight for her infertility, and when she explained she had trouble losing weight, the doctor had told her to starve herself. In the next consultation, the patient
FLUMIST
®
FLU PROTECTION
WITHOUT THE
INJECTION1
The only intranasal, needle-free flu vaccine that can trigger a 3-way immune response( mucosal, systemic, and cellular) 1-6 *
* While the mechanism of action conferring protection is not fully understood, serum antibodies, mucosal antibodies, and influenza-specific T cells may play a role 1
Provides up to 12 months’ protection against influenza 1, 9
A well characterised safety profile through clinical studies and real-world data over 20 years 1, 5-8
To find out more about FluMist ® and register your interest for 2026 preseason commitments Scan this QR code revealed she had lost weight and was eating only one meal a day, to which the doctor allegedly replied:“ What is your one meal— McDonald’ s?”
Another internal complaint alleged that the doctor had berated nursing staff with comments such as“ you are non-existent to me”, then justified her behaviour as“ for their own good”.
The doctor accepted she was stressed during this period, pointing out she was caring for her mother with severe Alzheimer’ s disease and financially supporting a sibling.
However, Primary eventually told the doctor her contract was being terminated because the company“ reasonably” believed her actions would adversely affect its reputation or business. The doctor— Primary IVF’ s highest biller when she was
Administered as a nasal spray, FluMist is indicated for the prevention of influenza in children and adolescents from 24 months to less than 18 years of age 1 and will be available on the private market in 2026. Check with your State regarding eligibility for funded flu immunisation programs.
Safety Information: FluMist is contraindicated in persons who have had a severe allergic reaction to the active substances, any of the excipients, gentamicin, eggs or egg proteins; children and adolescents with clinical immunodeficiency due to conditions or immunosuppressive therapy; children and adolescents < 18 years of age receiving salicylate therapy because of the association of Reye’ s syndrome with salicylates and wild-type influenza infection. Special warnings and precautions for use include severe asthma or active wheezing. Adverse reactions may include nasal congestion / rhinorrhoea, decreased appetite, malaise, headache, pyrexia and myalgia. 1
SCAN QR CODE to see full FLUMIST ® Product Information
FluMist ® is not listed on the National Immunisation Program( NIP).
‘ She was regularly abrasive.’
PLEASE REVIEW FULL PRODUCT INFORMATION BEFORE PRESCRIBING. PRODUCT INFORMATION AVAILABLE ON REQUEST FROM ASTRAZENECA ON 1800 805 342 OR WWW. ASTRAZENECA. COM. AU / PI OR BY SCANNING THE QR CODE.
References: 1. FLUMIST ® Approved Product Information. 2. Beyer WEP et al. Vaccine. 2002; 20( 9 – 10): 13401353. 3. Hoft DF et al. J Infect Dis. 2011; 204( 6): 845 – 853. 4. Holmgren J et al. Nat Med. 2005; 11( 4 suppl): S45 – S53. 5. Mohn KGI et al. Hum Vaccin Immunother. 2018; 14( 3): 571 – 578. 6. Cox RJ et al. Scand J Immunol. 2004; 59( 1): 1 – 15. 7. Belshe RB et al. Vaccine. 2008; 26( suppl 4): D10 – D16. 8. Lanthier PA et al. Vaccine. 2011; 29( 44): 7849 – 7856. 9. Ambrose CS et al. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2008; 27( 8): 744 – 748. FluMist ® is a registered trademark of the AstraZeneca group of companies. Registered user AstraZeneca Pty. Ltd. ABN 54 009 682 311. 66 Talavera Road, Macquarie Park, NSW 2113. www. astrazeneca. com. au. For Medical Information enquiries or to report an adverse event or product quality complaint: Telephone 1800 805 342 or via https:// contactazmedical. astrazeneca. com. 3050. AU-23807. October 2025. fired— then launched legal action seeking $ 3.8 million to compensate for lost earnings, reflecting the remaining time on her contract.
A“ restraint” clause in her contract prohibited her from working as a doctor in swathes of metropolitan Sydney for three years after being terminated, she told the court.
Responding to the patient complaints, she told the court:“ I know that every appointment I have with patients goes well.
“ These are patients’ opinions … but that does not automatically mean that you should believe them over me,” she said.
She said the complaints likely reflected how Primary ran the clinic on a tight budget and focused on high patient throughput.
“[ She ] explained that her role involved speaking to people about their sperm count, smoking, eating too much, drinking too much and being too old,” Justice Rees said.
“ Often, people did not like being confronted with these realities.”
The doctor argued that Primary was not entitled to terminate her contract until it had investigated the complaints to see if the allegations were true.“[ She ] did not accept the patient complaints unless they were proven before, say, the [ NSW ] Health Care Complaints Commission.”
The doctor conceded that she sometimes yelled at staff, Justice Rees said.
“ But the doctor justified her actions on the basis that she was, variously, advocating for her [ patients’] welfare, redressing the clinical errors of others, seeking to improve poor business operations by Primary IVF, or simply behaving in a manner that was true to her personality or cultural heritage,” the judge said.
Justice Rees heard that Primary’ s then-CEO Dr Malcolm Parmenter had decided that maintaining the reputation of the business and protecting other employees outweighed the estimated $ 7 million loss from firing a high-billing specialist.
Ultimately, Justice Rees said Primary’ s decision to end the contract was justified.
“ There was a steady stream of patient complaints and online reviews which, overall, indicated that [ the doctor ] was interacting with patients, with some frequency, in a manner which was not conducive to the sensitivities of the IVF patient cohort,” she said.
She said the doctor’ s behaviour was a serious breach of the contract obligation to work harmoniously with others.
“[ She was ] regularly abrasive and upsetting to those with whom she worked.
“ I do not suggest that the doctor intended to have this effect on her colleagues, but her approach could not be described as harmonious.”