B.J.D.J v Member of the Executive of Health,Limpopo (28412/2005) [2023] ZAGPPHC 756 (28 August 2023)

B.J.D.J v Member of the Executive of Health,Limpopo (28412/2005) [2023] ZAGPPHC 756 (28 August 2023)

The court found that although the plaintiff suffered an injury due to the suturing of her bladder during the hysterectomy, the evidence did not establish that the surgeon's conduct fell below the standard of a reasonably competent practitioner. The complication was recognised as an accepted risk in such procedures, and the expert evidence supporting negligence was rejected for lacking logical reasoning. The defendant's expert provided objective evidence that the complication rate for such injuries is within accepted norms and that the procedure was performed with appropriate skill and care. Consequently, the plaintiff failed to discharge the onus of proving negligence on the balance of...

Citation
[2023] ZAGPPHC 756
Parties
Plaintiff: B.J.D.J; Defendant: Member of the Executive Council of Health, Limpopo
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
28 August 2023
Case Number
28412/2005
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Liability Separated From Quantum; Judgment on Liability Only
Outcome
Plaintiff's claim dismissed with no order as to costs.
Judges
E Molahlehi
Legal Topics
Medical Negligence, Standard of Care, Causation, Expert Evidence
Delict Medical Negligence Standard of Care Causation Expert Evidence

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

B.J.D.J

Plaintiff

Member of the Executive Council of Health, Limpopo

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Liability Separated From Quantum; Judgment on Liability Only

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the surgeon, Dr Mnisi, acted negligently in performing the hysterectomy resulting in injury to the plaintiff's bladder.
  2. 2 Whether the complication suffered by the plaintiff was due to substandard care or was an accepted surgical risk.
  3. 3 Whether the defendant is liable for damages arising from the surgical complication.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that although the plaintiff suffered an injury due to the suturing of her bladder during the hysterectomy, the evidence did not establish that the surgeon's conduct fell below the standard of a reasonably competent practitioner. The complication was recognised as an accepted risk in such procedures, and the expert evidence supporting negligence was rejected for lacking logical reasoning. The defendant's expert provided objective evidence that the complication rate for such injuries is within accepted norms and that the procedure was performed with appropriate skill and care. Consequently, the plaintiff failed to discharge the onus of proving negligence on the balance of...

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's claim dismissed with no order as to costs.

Orders

  • The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.