The Medical Council has revealed it had received 37 complaints about the professional conduct of a Drogheda-based consultant obstetrician who was found by the High Court last month to have unnecessarily removed the womb of one of his patients.
The council yesterday said the complaints about Dr Michael Neary related to him carrying out caesarean hysterectomies at Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital, Drogheda, and about his alleged rude and insensitive behaviour.
It judged that just 21 or slightly more than half of the complaints received warranted the holding of an inquiry under the Medical Practitioners Act.
Last month the High Court ruled that Dr Neary had unnecessarily removed the womb of Ms Alison Gough (37), Market House Lane, Ardee, Co Louth, less than an hour after she gave birth by caesarean section to her only child, Daniel, in 1992. She was awarded more than €273,000 compensation plus the costs of her case.
Dr Neary is appealing the ruling to the Supreme Court.
The North Eastern Health Board, which took over the hospital from the Medical Missionaries of Mary in 1997, is facing 65 legal actions arising out of allegations made against Dr Neary.
Yesterday's statement by the Medical Council on the complaints it had received about Dr Neary was its first public statement on the matter since its Fitness to Practise Committee began investigating the complaints more than two years ago.
The inquiry's "substantive hearings" into 15 of the complaints began in October 2000, more than 1½ years after the council went to the High Court to have Dr Neary suspended from the medical register.
A further six complaints "will not be addressed by the Medical Council until the conclusion of the current inquiry", it said.
While there has been some concern about the length of the inquiry, the Medical Council pointed out that its Fitness to Practise Committee had sat for 30 days and evidence had been given by 10 patients, eight pathologists or anaesthetists and two consultant obstetricians, including one from Britain. They were cross-examined by Dr Neary's legal representatives.
"During the course of the inquiry, the committee decided that Dr Neary had no case to answer in whole or in part in relation to the complaints made by five patients," it said.
It added that Dr Neary, who is defending the complaints, began giving evidence to the inquiry in September and "is presently being cross-examined".
"It is anticipated that this inquiry will conclude in early 2003. Thereafter submissions on behalf of the parties will be made and the committee will prepare a report for the Medical Council. The council will decide at a subsequent meeting what sanctions, if any, to impose," the statement said.
Furthermore, it said the reason a number of its scheduled hearings had been postponed during the inquiry was both as a result of applications made on behalf of Dr Neary and because its own Fitness to Practise Committee was unable to sit on certain dates.