Cancer surgeon 'lied to patient by claiming he had successfully removed brain tumour' but when she sought second opinion two years later she was told it was inoperable Emmanuel Labram 'lied to colleagues and forged documents to cover up' Barrister tells tribunal that the surgeon 'lied and lied and lied' The woman was diagnosed with a brain tumour after consulting her optician MRI scan revealed she had a one-inch tumour in her brain Surgery was carried out but it was never removed 'Liar': Emmanuel Labram repeatedly told the patient that her tumour had been removed even though it was still there, the tribunal heard A cancer surgeon repeatedly lied to a patient by falsely claiming that he had successfully removed her brain tumour for two years, a tribunal heard. Emmanuel Labram kept reassuring the woman until she sought a second opinion and discovered it was still there but had become inoperable. The neurosurgeon knew that what he was telling her was untrue but continued the deception by lying to colleagues at Aberdeen Royal Infirmary and forging documents, the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service heard. The woman, known only as Patient A, was operated on by Labram at the hospital in September 2008. She was eventually forced to seek private treatment, but by that stage nothing could be done. The woman is still undergoing treatment for the condition and remains in good health. Craig Sephton QC, for the General Medical Council, told the misconduct hearing: "This is a case where it is difficult to understand why Mr Labram initially told the patient and her husband that he had completely removed the lesion when he must have known that no such thing had happened. He then lied and lied and lied in order to cover up his initial failure and the GMC will therefore invite you to conclude that is what has happened. After falling ill on holiday in November, 2007, Patient A consulted her optician and was referred to the Aberdeen Royal Infirmary. An MRI scan revealed a tumour about one-inch in diameter in an area in her brain known as the cavernous sinus and she saw Labram to discuss her options in June, 2008. She decided to go ahead with an operation and underwent surgery on September 2. "After the operation, Mr Labram gave Patient A's husband a vivid description of how he had removed the tumour and informed Patient A the surgery had gone well," said Mr Sephton. Surgeon: Emmanuel Labram treated the woman at Aberdeen Royal Infirmary - then repeatedly lied that her tumour had been removed In fact he had not excised the lesion at all, whether in its entirety or otherwise, and Mr Labram must have known he had not done so. He then lied and lied and lied in order to cover up his initial failure and the GMC will therefore invite you to conclude that is what has happened Craig Sephton QC, for the General Medical Council It is alleged he only removed four tiny hard pale fragments when he knew the tumour was an inch in diameter and recorded in his notes only that "biopsies" had been taken. "The GMC does not know why Mr Labram told Mr and Mrs A the lesion had been removed but there is no doubt he did so and what he said was clearly untrue and he knew it was untrue," said Mr Sephton. The only explanation is he was being dishonest. Labram even sent letters to the patient's GP telling him that no further treatment was necessary, the panel heard. There is no clinical justification not to tell the truth to Patient A or her GP. Mr Labram acted dishonestly in asserting what he knew was not true," added Mr Sephton. In January 2009, the surgeon is said to have altered a pathology report and sent a forged copy to his patient in order to conceal the fact she might need further treatment. Two months later he failed to tell Patient A another MRI scan showed the tumour was in fact unchanged "to conceal the fact to Patient A that he had not removed the lesion and also to maintain the untruthful position he had adopted in 2008 and persisted with." When asked by the patient whether the pathology report was complete or not he told her "a simple direct lie," it was said. Labram then changed his stance after a third MRI scan, telling Patient A and her GP that the lesion had returned, when he knew there had been no change. "One wonders what possible benefit it could be to a patient to say to a patient that a mass she thought had been removed had now significantly returned," said Mr Sephton. He again changed his tune in May 2010, now telling Patient A that he did not know the tumour was present when he operated on her and gave her another doctored pathology report with the author's signature "cut and pasted" in, the panel heard. Patient A raised concerns and the hospital's medical director ordered an investigation. When quizzed about his actions in January 2011, Labram allegedly continued to lie to bosses, claiming "he did not want to cause further stress to the patient." "He was given the opportunity to come clean about the lies he had told and elected to not do so," explained Mr Sephton. Labram, of Aberdeen, faces 11 allegations relating to his conduct surrounding the patient's treatment. After a failed application to be voluntarily erased from the medical register Labram withdrew from proceedings and is not present or represented at the hearing in Manchester. He is currently able to work within the UK subject to six conditions on his registration that keep him closely monitored by his professional regulator. If found guilty of misconduct he could be kicked out of the medical profession.