Woman Develops Inoperable Brain Cancer After Doctor Allegedly Lies About Removing The Growth And Then Falsifies Medical Reports

230px-Hirnmetastase_MRT-T1_KMSurgeon Emmanuel Labram is facing misconduct charges this month after a woman came forward with an allegation that he told her that had successfully removed her brain tumor when he had not. Labram allegedly encouraged her not to seek further treatment after her surgery at the Aberdeen Royal Infirmary in Scotland. (picture shows brain scan from different case)

The woman said that Labram convinced her that she was healthy after the surgery to remove a tumor growing at the base of her brain. By the time she found out the truth, the tumor was inoperable.

Notably, Labram is not facing a criminal charge but appearing before a Medical Practitioners Tribunal Hearing. He allegedly committed a fraud that will cost her life but it is a mere matter of civil liability and a professional review board. The harshest penalty is a lifetime ban from practice, but what about the criminality of such actions? This is not just negligence but an alleged pattern of false statements and forgeries.

In his surgery, Labram did not remove the lesion that was an inch in diameter but rather four fragments. He is then accused of forging medical documents to continue the deception that he had removed the cancerous growth. This included pathology reports and letters to her GP giving her a clean bill of health. He is also accused of hiding MRI scans showing the cancer was not removed. It seems to me that this should be addressed through not just civil but criminal proceedings.

The 58-year-old surgeon is originally from Ghana but is licensed to practice in Scotland.

14 thoughts on “Woman Develops Inoperable Brain Cancer After Doctor Allegedly Lies About Removing The Growth And Then Falsifies Medical Reports”

  1. nick spinelli. Sorry for long time no reply, failed to tick follow up response box I think.

    In UK I can generally can see my GP same day if I call in the morning or next day if in afternoon. If an “emergency” I can attend the local “walk in service” which happens to be run in the local GP medical centre or the slightly further away hospital Accident and Emergency as a walk in. If a real emergency I can call 999 like you call 911. If just a concern I can make an appointment up to a month in advance.

    Seeing as specialist varies depending on severity. People diagnosed with some illnesses can get to see one the next day, others within a few weeks / months.

    As a personal example my brother recently went to the emergency out of hours GP (Saturday evening) based at our local hospital complaining of severe stomach cramping, diarrhea and vomiting which was mostly brown substance. He was driven to the hospital because he didn’t feel it warranted an ambulance and waited for GP on a triage system which meant around 1 1/2 hour wait. He saw GP and was admitted and put on a painkiller drip.

    They put him in his own room because there was a risk he had MRSA. They x-rayed him, did an ultra-sound, took bloods, did an MRI and finally an endoscopy over the next five days. He actually felt much better the next day but they wanted to rule out all the nasty things mainly because of the “brown vomit”, which could have been internal bleeding or it could have been the partially digested cheese on toast he’d had for lunch.

    My ex was diagnosed with cancer of the womb. She saw a specialist and was operated on within 2 months. She had follow up radiotherapy and follow up checks with the specialist for the next 6 years although she was declared clear after 5. I’ve since lost touch.

    My dad had prostate cancer and was seen by a specialist and operated on within 3 months of diagnosis. He still has annual follow up checks with the specialist 10 years later. He was also hospitalised via ambulance for a heart attack, was operated on and given follow ups via GP shortly before the cancer; he also saw a heart specialist.

    Meanwhile a friend of mine in the USA had a knee operation, he then had to have a 2nd operation and the insurance (through his employers) refused to pay because they said it was a repeat procedure. He was still billed and as far as I know is still paying it off 10 years later. Seems wrong somehow.

  2. @nick spinelli: Interesting to read about your experience in WI. Is that materially different from the situation in the non-socialized state of Texas, where non-economic med mal awards have been limited to $250k since 2003? I’ve read that none of the supposed benefits of capping, i.e., reduced med mal premiums, cost containment, decreased “defensive” diagnostic testing, have in fact occurred there. BTW, while awards are capped, there is no corresponding statutory cap on attorney fees.

  3. While I fully agree that this guy needs to be behind bars for the duration, and to pay all his assets to the victim’s survivors, I am just not seeing his motive. The story is missing a discussion of this critical element.

  4. This is the 2nd such case of a dr lying to a patient and falsifying records to cover it up and a woman loses her life for it and there is no repercussion for the dr. it will only get worse. as the medical industry is in a battle with the pharma industry for supremacy



  5. This sounds like criminal negligence to me. Wiki says this about “criminal negligence” in England:

    English law

    The leading statement to describe ‘criminal negligence’ at common law for the purposes of establishing a test for manslaughter in English law, may be found in the statement by Lord Hewart CJ in the case of R v Bateman:[1]

    In explaining to juries the test which they should apply to determine whether the negligence, in the particular case, amounted or did not amount to a crime, judges have used many epithets, such as ‘culpable’, ‘criminal’, ‘gross’, ‘wicked’, ‘clear’, ‘complete’. But, whatever epithet be used and whether an epithet be used or not, in order to establish criminal liability the facts must be such that, in the opinion of the jury, the negligence of the accused went beyond a mere matter of compensation between subjects and showed such disregard for the life and safety of others as to amount to a crime against the State and conduct deserving punishment.

    I don’t know about Scotland, but hopefully he won’t get off scot free.

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

  6. I would say if the patient died this would be a good first degree manslaughter case (criminal recklessness) or at least a 2nd degree (criminal negligence) Plus, hitting him with forgery.

    This was not just an error that can happen with any surgeon, even if it was after the first surgery the follow up x-ray should have alerted the surgeon to go back and remove the rest of the tumor. Instead he covered his error, an error that might have cost him financially in terms of a sanction of some kind plus him maybe having to correct the error for free, and to avoid these loses he jeopardized the life of the patient, converting a treatable disease into a deadly afliction.

    Moreover, a lifetime ban on practicing medicine is certainly warranted. If I was on the medical review board I would never let this man risk endangering another patient again.

  7. In Scotland, a patient can recover compensation for medical malpractice without a cap on damages.

  8. grathuln, Thanks for your comment. Please tell me a bit about your experience w/ medical services in the UK. How long to see a general practitioner? How long to see a specialist? That is the biggest complaint I have heard from folks in your great country. There simply aren’t enough docs because the pay is not commensurate w/ the educational costs and workload.

  9. This guy needs to be spending some serious time behind bars. I will let OS choose the Scottish jail that is most appropriate for a dirt bag like this guy.

  10. Nick, that might be how it works in the USA re liability capping but I don’t think that’s how it works here. As to your view on social medicine I’d rather pay a few extra pounds in tax than have the option to pay an insurance company far more knowing that if I do claim being a for profit company means they will do anything they can to avoid paying out and limit what they do pay out.

  11. While the criminality of this is in my mind, obvious; what about the civil end. When doctors are employees of the govt., liability is limited. In Wi., I worked med malpractice cases. The doctors @ the U. of Wi. are protected by a 250k cap in damages, where doctors in the private sector are not. So, as we drift toward socialized medicine please keep that in mind.

  12. Hmmmm…. Wouldn’t be much if fervent in most states here…. Insurance companies will see to that…

Comments are closed.