Abstract
The Road Accident Fund Amendment Act 19 of 2005 came into effect on 1 August 2008. This Act limits the Road Accident Fund’s liability for compensation in respect of claims for non-pecuniary loss to instances where a “serious injury” has been sustained. A medical practitioner has to determine whether or not the claimant has suffered a serious injury by undertaking an assessment prescribed in the Regulations to the Act. The practitioner has to complete a RAF 4 report. In doing so the practitioner must assess the injury in terms of the American Medical Association’s Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (6th ed). If the injury is considered to have resulted in less than 30 per cent of the whole personimpairment the medical practitioner should apply the narrative test. The article focuses on the narrative test but also discusses reasons why the regulations do not fulfil the requirements of the Act; reasons why the Guides is not adequate to the task; the impact of the circumstances of an injured person on disability; problems with the existing wording of the narrative test; shortcomings on the RAf 4 form; the administrative process as well as the appeal tribunals.KEYWORDS: Road Accident Fund, serious injuries, non-pecuniary loss, permanent impairment
Highlights
The Road Accident Fund Act 56 of 1996 has for many years been a bone of contention between lawyers, the government and physicians
The Act was signed by the President on 24 October 1996 and it commenced on 1 May 1997.5 The long anticipated Road Accident Fund Amendment Act 19 of 2005 came into effect on 1 August 2008
After the completion of an assessment, where the result is less than a 30 per cent WPI, the claimant may well be able to show that he or she qualifies for compensation by the Road Accident Fund (RAF) in terms of the narrative test
Summary
The Road Accident Fund Act 56 of 1996 has for many years been a bone of contention between lawyers, the government and physicians. According to this method, when the "Degree of Pain-Related Impairment" is classified by the AMA Guides as "Extreme",20 a "Whole Person Impairment" of only 3 per cent is awarded This means that a victim who is disabled due to chronic pain (such that the victim is unable to work; needs help with personal care; travels only to see doctors; cannot lift objects off the floor, bend, stoop or squat; cannot walk or run; has loss of income; is on pain medication throughout the day; is forced by pain to see doctors weekly; is unable to see people who are important to the victim as much as he or she would like; suffers total interference with important recreational activities and hobbies; needs help to complete everyday tasks; suffers severe depression/tension; and suffers emotional problems caused by pain that interfere with family, social or work activities) will not receive any compensation for general damages because 3 per cent falls far short of the prescribed minimum requirement of the 30 per cent of WPI required by the Regulations.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
