A Luxembourg court is dealing with a dispute between the two former senior partners of a gynaecological practice.

The former partners worked together from January until September 2013, when they parted ways due to the alleged misconduct of the second partner. Since this event, the second partner (the accused in this case) has been found guilty of committing several acts of defamation against the first, the plaintiff in this case.

For this reason, the plaintiff gynaecologist's lawyer is demanding damages of €15,000 from the second, accused gynaecologist.

According to the plaintiff's lawyer, after leaving the plaintiff gynaecologist's office, the accused doctor contacted patients to criticise his client. In particular, the accused doctor told the women that his former partner, the plaintiff, was a bad gynaecologist, that he was responsible for the death of an infant and that he had made several serious professional mistakes. According to the plaintiff's lawyer, patients then started to doubt the plainfiff's competence and stopped making appointments with him. As well, the lawyer said there were more threats made in October 2014 within the CHL.

One witness reported that while awaiting an operation carried out by the plaintiff doctor in October 2014, the accused doctor came to into the room to tell them that the plaintiff doctor was a bad practitioner who had already killed many children, which naturally resulted in the patient being frightened.

A nap, cocaine, a coma

Four witnesses called by the plaintiff doctor indicated that the accused doctor had committed two serious offences of professional misconduct. He took a nap during a delivery, and he was arrogant and over-excited. A witness who claimed to be the assistant of the plaintiff gynaecologist explained to the judges that she had seen the accused gynaecologist taking cocaine in her presence.

According to the plaintiff gynaecologist's lawyer, an alleged female victim needed to spend a month in an intensive care unit due to professional misconduct. According to the plaintiff's lawyer, the reliability of the accused gynaecologist should be questioned because of his behaviour and cocaine use. The lawyer insisted that the accused gynaecologist did not respond well to the professional separation. He argued that since the plaintiff doctor could not be guilty of defamation, he should be acquitted.

Finally, the plaintiff doctor explained that two infants died because of mistakes made by his former colleague, the accused, and that a woman was in an artificial coma for ten days for the same reason. He insisted he should be seen as the victim in this case and his former colleague, the accused, would only harm him.

The judgment will be rendered on April 6th.