Vonnisbespreking: Mediese nalatigheid – vertraging in oorplasing van pasiënt na geskikte sorg; en of nalatigheid oorsaaklik verband hou met amputasie van pasiënt se been

Abstract

Medical negligence – delay in transfer of patient to definitive care; and whether negligence was causally linked to amputation of patient’s leg The majority decision in the present case concerns a medical negligence matter involving the negligence of a general practitioner regarding his treatment of another medical practitioner who had sustained an injury during a robbery. The case merits closer inspection for a few reasons. The majority decision did not consider all the elements of a delict as one would expect, whilst the finding was based mainly on a hypothetical construction of the medical negligence test. The majority’s handling of expert medical evidence is also peculiar for preferring a theoretically based expert opinion to the opinion of an expert who personally examined the injured patient. In the discussion the facts are briefly traced, emphasising the chronological order of events for the specific reason of the significance of the time factor in the judgment. Next the majority and minority judgments are discussed, followed by a consideration of the test for medical negligence in the case, the role of causation and the contrasting expert evidence that was presented. The discussion is concluded with the argument that had the locality rule (the role of locality when ascertaining medical negligence) been applied in this case, the outcome would have been completely different.