Dr Simon Gordon Endometriosis Investigation: Do You Have a Compensation Claim After Surgery?
When endometriosis surgery causes avoidable harm, the law may recognise your right to compensation and accountability.
If you underwent endometriosis surgery with Dr Simon Gordon and now question whether it was necessary, you are not alone. Many women are closely following the Dr Simon Gordon Endometriosis investigation to understand what it may mean for them.
Women often begin searching for answers about endometriosis because they still suffer pain, hormonal disruption, infertility, or surgical complications. However, some later ask a more serious question:
Did I actually need that surgery at all?
In February 2026, Dr Simon Gordon surrendered his medical registration while under investigation by the <a href=”https://www.ahpra.gov.au” target=”_blank” rel=”noopener”>Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA)</a>. Public reporting has raised concerns about diagnosis, severity assessment, and whether certain procedures may not have been clinically necessary.
No findings have been made.
However, a regulatory investigation does not prevent you from understanding your own legal position. In some cases, the harm may not come from endometriosis itself. It may come from surgery that should never have occurred.
Quick Self-Check During the Dr Simon Gordon Endometriosis Investigation
If you are questioning your surgery, trust that instinct.
Use this guide to reflect on your experience:
| If This Happened… | Why It Matters Legally |
|---|---|
| You were told your endometriosis was “severe” but scans were unclear | Surgery must be based on objective medical evidence |
| You were told surgery was urgent | True urgency requires clear clinical justification |
| Your ovaries or reproductive organs were removed | Organ removal creates permanent consequences and requires strong informed consent |
| You were not offered hormonal or non-surgical options | Doctors must explain reasonable alternatives |
| Pathology later showed mild disease | Surgery may not have matched actual severity |
| You entered early menopause | You should have been clearly warned of this risk |
| You lost fertility | Fertility loss significantly increases damages |
| Another doctor later questioned the need for surgery | Independent doubt raises clinical concerns |
| You now live with chronic pain or complications | Harm from unnecessary surgery may be compensable |
One red flag does not automatically mean negligence.
However, multiple red flags during the Dr Simon Gordon Endometriosis investigation may justify a proper review.
Medical negligence focuses on one central issue:
Would a reasonable specialist have recommended the same surgery, based on the evidence available at the time?
If the answer may be “no,” you deserve clarity.
How Do I Know If I Have a Claim in the Dr Simon Gordon Endometriosis Investigation?
Women who contact us often describe a similar pattern.
They experienced:
- Pelvic pain or heavy periods
- Fertility concerns
- Pain during intercourse
- Fatigue or digestive symptoms
A doctor diagnosed severe endometriosis and recommended urgent surgery. In some cases, the recommendation included removal of ovaries or other reproductive organs.
But later:
- Pathology did not confirm severe disease
- Symptoms continued or worsened
- New complications developed
- Hormonal changes caused distress
- Fertility was permanently affected
Endometriosis can cause serious symptoms. However, not every case requires invasive surgery. No patient should undergo organ removal without clear clinical justification.
When surgery proceeds without adequate evidence, serious legal questions arise.
Why the Dr Simon Gordon Endometriosis Investigation Matters Legally
From a medical perspective, diagnosing endometriosis can be complex.
From a legal perspective, the issue becomes simpler.
The law asks:
- Did the doctor conduct proper assessment before recommending surgery?
- Did imaging or pathology support the severity claimed?
- Were non-surgical alternatives explained?
- Was informed consent truly obtained?
Medical negligence does not require proof of bad intent.
It requires proof that the standard of care fell below what a reasonable specialist would have provided.
If a reasonable gynaecologist would have managed the condition conservatively or explored alternatives, but surgery proceeded anyway, that may amount to negligence.
You can read more about how medical negligence is assessed under the <a href=”https://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/view/html/inforce/current/act-2002-022″ target=”_blank” rel=”noopener”>Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW)</a>.
When Endometriosis Surgery Becomes the Injury
Endometriosis itself can cause pain.
But unnecessary surgery can create permanent harm.
Women may suffer:
- Early menopause
- Hormonal instability
- Infertility
- Chronic pelvic pain
- Surgical complications
- Adhesions
- Psychological trauma
- Loss of income
- Loss of sexual function
Earlier conservative treatment may have preserved fertility. Avoiding surgery may have prevented complications.
Legally, you do not need to prove that symptoms would have disappeared entirely.
You only need to show that a different medical decision would have produced a materially better outcome.
That distinction is critical in the Dr Simon Gordon Endometriosis investigation.
When Surgery May Amount to Medical Negligence
You may have a viable claim if:
- You underwent surgery for “severe” endometriosis
- Imaging or pathology did not clearly support severity
- Surgery was described as urgent
- Alternatives were not explained
- Ovaries were removed
- You suffered permanent hormonal or fertility consequences
- Avoidable complications occurred
The issue does not turn on whether endometriosis exists.
It turns on whether surgery was clinically justified.
If red flags were present and a reasonable specialist would not have proceeded, legal accountability may follow.
Learn more about surgical negligence here:
<a href=”https://reframelegal.com.au/medical-negligence/” target=”_blank” rel=”noopener”>Medical Negligence Claims</a>
Compensation Ranges in the Dr Simon Gordon Endometriosis Investigation
| Severity of Harm | Indicative Compensation Range |
|---|---|
| Mild to Moderate Harm | $75,000 – $150,000 |
| Significant Injury or Prolonged Impact | $150,000 – $500,000 |
| Permanent Infertility, Early Menopause, or Lifelong Consequences | $500,000+ |
Important Context
Compensation depends on:
- Age at time of surgery
- Whether fertility was permanently lost
- Whether ovaries were removed
- Long-term hormonal impact
- Psychological injury
- Work and income consequences
This is not a fixed payout system.
Courts calculate damages under structured legal principles and statutory caps. However, reproductive harm and permanent hormonal consequences often place claims in the higher compensation brackets because fertility and hormonal stability carry lifelong impact.
How We Assess Claims Linked to the Dr Simon Gordon Endometriosis Investigation
We take a structured approach.
We:
- Obtain full medical records
- Review imaging and pathology
- Compare treatment decisions to accepted guidelines
- Seek independent specialist opinion
- Assess whether informed consent occurred
- Analyse long-term impact
This evidence-based method determines whether the standard of care was met.
If Your Endometriosis Surgery Caused Irreversible Harm
If you now live with infertility, early menopause, chronic pain, or emotional trauma after surgery performed by Dr Simon Gordon, the issue may not be your body.
It may have been a failure to properly assess necessity before operating.
And that failure may entitle you to compensation.
Confidential Assessment During the Dr Simon Gordon Endometriosis Investigation
If you underwent endometriosis surgery with Dr Simon Gordon at Epworth HealthCare or Endo Health and question whether it was necessary, a confidential medical negligence assessment can clarify your position.
You do not need certainty.
You only need the right information.
About the Lawyer Behind This Article
This article is written by Dr Rosemary Listing, a lawyer with a PhD in medical negligence and extensive experience in complex surgical negligence claims.
She has acted for many patients whose symptoms were misdiagnosed, overstated, or treated with invasive procedures that did not meet the required legal standard.
In these matters, the injury often arose not only from the condition itself, but from the decision to operate without adequate basis.
Her role involves examining medical records, assessing the legal standard that applied at the time, and explaining clearly whether that standard was met.
Many clients do not seek blame.
They seek clarity.