Neurosurgeon Charlie Teo has reached an undisclosed settlement agreement with the family of a patient who died shortly after undergoing surgery for an incurable brain tumour.

This outcome follows a professional misconduct finding against Teo, which highlighted ethical concerns surrounding the operation in question.

The case dates back to September 2018 when a woman from Perth was diagnosed with glioblastoma, a form of brain cancer known for its aggressive nature and poor prognoses.

Medical professionals at the time advised her that surgery would be futile and that her life expectancy was 12 to 18 months.

Despite this grim outlook, the woman’s family sought Teo's intervention.

During a consultation in Sydney in October 2018, Teo reportedly minimized the risks associated with the surgery, stating that there was a 5 percent risk of death and a 50 percent chance of minor complications.

He conveyed a sense of hope, suggesting that with the operation, the woman might live long enough to see her youngest child graduate high school.

The surgery took place the day after this consultation.

However, it resulted in severe complications; the patient did not regain consciousness and was subsequently transferred to Perth, where she passed away in April 2019.

The Professional Standards Committee later determined that Teo's decision to proceed with the surgery was unethical and improper, citing a lack of supportive statistical data or clinical guidelines.

The committee noted deficiencies in Teo's insight, judgment, and his ability to fully communicate the associated risks.

In court proceedings, Justice David Davies remarked on the understated nature of the risks communicated to the patient, leading to significant mental health repercussions for her family.

The patient’s husband filed a lawsuit against Teo in May, seeking compensation for the psychological impact of the loss, including claims of developing PTSD and an alcohol use disorder following the death of his wife.

The couple's three children also claimed damages, citing experiences of depression and anxiety, with their total claims exceeding $1 million.

Teo had previously settled with the husband and one of the adult children, which required court approval for the settlement terms concerning the two minor children.

The court's consideration centered on distinguishing how much of the family's emotional distress stemmed from the alleged negligence of Teo versus the inherent challenges imposed by the patient’s terminal condition prior to seeking his care.

Justice Davies affirmed the appropriateness of the compensation determined by the family’s legal counsel and psychiatric advice.