If you received intramuscular fentanyl during blepharoplasty or liposuction at Dr Jerry Schwartz's Matraville practice between August 2019 and February 2021, Clever Legal can help you investigate whether you may have a claim.
NCAT found that Dr Gerald Schwartz administered conscious sedation to eight patients in breach of conditions on his registration. It also found serious deficiencies in the sedation care provided to those patients. The finding is important, but it does not automatically establish negligence or a right to compensation.
What did NCAT find about Dr Schwartz's sedation patients?
In Health Care Complaints Commission v Schwartz [2026] NSWCATOD 8, NCAT found that:
| NCAT finding | What it means |
|---|---|
| Eight patients received intramuscular fentanyl during ten procedures | The procedures included blepharoplasty and liposuction between 8 August 2019 and 18 February 2021 |
| The fentanyl amounted to conscious sedation | Dr Schwartz breached a condition preventing him from administering conscious sedation himself |
| No approved anaesthetist or sedationist administered and monitored the sedation | The conditions required a dedicated approved practitioner to do this |
| The care exercised was significantly below the standard reasonably expected | NCAT identified failures involving intravenous access, monitoring, consent and pre-sedation assessment |
| The required sedation logbook was not maintained | NCAT found a further breach of the registration conditions |
NCAT found Dr Schwartz guilty of unsatisfactory professional conduct and professional misconduct on 22 January 2026.
Has Dr Schwartz's appeal been decided?
Dr Schwartz appealed the NCAT decision. The official NSW Court of Appeal page records the appeal and the parties' submissions, but no published appeal judgment was available when this guide was prepared.
The January NCAT findings remain the relevant published decision. That decision did not make final protective orders. NCAT adjourned those orders to a later Stage 2 hearing.
Does professional misconduct mean a patient has a negligence claim?
No. A disciplinary finding and a civil medical negligence claim are different proceedings.
The NCAT decision may be relevant evidence because it examines the sedation practices used for the eight patients. An individual patient would still need to establish that the care was negligent, that it caused injury or loss, and that the claim was brought within the applicable time limit.
This distinction matters. The regulator's finding gives affected patients a reason to investigate. It does not guarantee compensation.
Read how a medical negligence claim is established for a plain explanation of breach, causation and loss.
What if another firm would not take the case?
A firm may decline a medical negligence claim because the likely legal and expert costs make it commercially difficult, even where there is a genuine issue worth investigating.
Clever Legal exists for claims that can fall into that gap. We can assess what happened and tell you plainly whether there is a reasonable next step.
Was Dr Schwartz struck off?
The published January 2026 decision did not strike Dr Schwartz off or make other final protective orders. NCAT adjourned that question to a Stage 2 hearing.
What should an affected patient do now?
If you were one of the eight patients, or had a similar procedure with intramuscular fentanyl at the practice during the same period, do not assume the misconduct finding means you have a claim. Do not assume you have no claim either.
The procedures took place between 2019 and 2021, so time limits may be important. Read our guide to medical negligence time limits, then get advice based on your own dates and circumstances.
Start your assessment
If you were affected, start a free assessment with Clever Legal. Tell us the procedure, the approximate date, what sedation you recall and what happened afterwards.
We will tell you plainly whether there is a reasonable next step.
Sources
- NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal, Health Care Complaints Commission v Schwartz [2026] NSWCATOD 8
- NSW Health Care Complaints Commission, Dr Gerald Schwartz misconduct finding, 13 February 2026
- Supreme Court of NSW, Gerald Schwartz v Health Care Complaints Commission appeal materials
- Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (NSW)
- Limitation Act 1969 (NSW)
This article provides general information and is not legal advice or medical advice. Medical negligence claims are subject to strict time limits. Seek specific advice promptly.