The Health Professions Council of South Africa (HPCSA) and Road Accident Fund (RAF) will have to cough up for the legal costs of a man who suffered injuries in a hit and run incident.
In a successful appeal application from Justin Daniels’s legal team, the Supreme Court of Appeal set aside a Western Cape High Court judgment and ruled that the matter be referred back to a RAF Tribunal.
Wayne Coughlan, appearing as the appellant on behalf of Daniels, instituted a claim for damages for injuries allegedly sustained from a motor vehicle accident in November 2019.
Daniels was a pedestrian when he was hit by a car in a hit-and-run incident.
The judgment read: “(Daniels) was able to walk to a police station afterwards but complained of lower back injury and a sore foot. He later presented himself at Tygerberg Hospital, where he was diagnosed with a mild head injury and noted for aggressive and irrational behaviour, which a doctor concluded was attributed to substance abuse. Coughlan claims that the bodily injuries sustained by Daniels entitle him to compensation from the RAF.”
Daniels was assessed by a psychiatrist registered according to the Health Professions Act who completed the relevant RAF4 form and reported that Daniels suffered a whole person impairment (WPI) of 35%, indicating a severe long-term mental and behavioural disturbance.
“The RAF then required additional assessment by its own psychiatrist, who also found that Daniels had a WPI exceeding 30% and suffered from severe long-term mental or behavioural disturbance. (The psychiatrist) noted that the head injury triggered a chronic psychotic illness not previously evident. Both assessments confirmed that Daniels’ injuries were classified as serious,” the judgment further read.
However, the RAF called for a further assessment by a neurosurgeon.
The neurosurgeon disagreed with the psychiatrists and found, instead, that Daniels had suffered a “minor head injury”. The neurosurgeon concluded that the severe psychotic episodes experienced by Daniels after the accident were “not related to the collision but were due to substance abuse”.
Coughlan disputed the neurosurgeon’s assessment, arguing that it was based on a neurosurgeon’s report as opposed to that of a psychiatrist, and filed a dispute with the HPCSA.
The dispute went through multiple tribunals and review applications.
SCA acting judge of appeal, Mokgere Masipa, said: “While it is within the purview of the Tribunal to determine the seriousness of the injury, they must consider relevant factors and not exceed their authority. The Tribunal's decision appears to pivot on a misapprehension of its powers by delving into the causal link between the accident and Daniels’ psychosis.
While (a doctor’s) report may have been relevant for assessing the physical aspects of Daniels’ injury, his conclusion regarding the causality and psychiatric implications overstepped and should not have been determinative.
“It follows that the Tribunal exceeded its powers by making findings on causality, a matter reserved for the courts. Its reliance on an expert outside the relevant field of psychiatry may have compromised the legitimacy of its decision. However, I am not in a position to determine this issue which should be left to the medical professionals. In my view, had the Tribunal been constituted as agreed, it would likely have reached an appropriate decision,” said Judge Masipa.
She set aside the decision of the high court and ruled that the matter be referred back to the Tribunal which must comprise three psychiatrists and/or three psychiatrists and a clinical neuropsychologist for a decision on the seriousness of the injury.
Cape Times