B.M and Another v MEC for Health for the Province of KwaZulu-Natal (9605/2016) [2022] ZAKZDHC 43 (16 September 2022)

B.M and Another v MEC for Health for the Province of KwaZulu-Natal (9605/2016) [2022] ZAKZDHC 43 (16 September 2022)

The court found that the hospital personnel failed to administer thromboembolism prophylaxis to the deceased, despite clear risk factors for venous thromboembolism, including a compound femur fracture, obesity, age, delayed surgery, and prolonged immobilisation. Expert evidence established that the deceased should have been classified as high risk and that pharmacological prophylaxis was the minimum requirement to potentially save his life. The absence of treatment and inadequate record-keeping between 16 and 19 May 2014 constituted sub-standard care. The court held that the defendant's breach of duty was causally linked to the deceased's death, and the plaintiffs were entitled to damages...

Citation
[2022] ZAKZDHC 43
Parties
Plaintiff: B[....]2 M[....]; Plaintiff: H[....] B[....] M[....]; Defendant: MEC for Health for the Province of KwaZulu-Natal
Court
Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
16 September 2022
Case Number
9605/2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Judgment
Outcome
Plaintiffs' claim for loss of support is upheld; defendant is ordered to pay damages and costs.
Judges
ME Nkosi
Legal Topics
Medical Negligence, Loss of Support, Hospital Standard of Care, Causation, Expert Evidence
Delict Civil Procedure Medical Negligence Loss of Support Hospital 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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

B[....]2 M[....]

Plaintiff

H[....] B[....] M[....]

Plaintiff

MEC for Health for the Province of KwaZulu-Natal

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant's medical personnel were negligent in their treatment of the deceased.
  2. 2 Whether such negligence was causally linked to the deceased's death.
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to damages for loss of support.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the hospital personnel failed to administer thromboembolism prophylaxis to the deceased, despite clear risk factors for venous thromboembolism, including a compound femur fracture, obesity, age, delayed surgery, and prolonged immobilisation. Expert evidence established that the deceased should have been classified as high risk and that pharmacological prophylaxis was the minimum requirement to potentially save his life. The absence of treatment and inadequate record-keeping between 16 and 19 May 2014 constituted sub-standard care. The court held that the defendant's breach of duty was causally linked to the deceased's death, and the plaintiffs were entitled to damages...

Court Disposition

Plaintiffs' claim for loss of support is upheld; defendant is ordered to pay damages and costs.

Orders

  • The defendant is directed to pay to the first plaintiff in her personal capacity and in her representative capacity as mother and natural guardian of her minor child, G[....] B[....] M[....], and in her capacity as executrix of her deceased child, Welcome B[....] M[....], and to the second plaintiff, such damages as...
  • The defendant is directed to pay the plaintiffs' taxed or agreed party and party costs on the high court scale, including all reserved costs, the costs of plaintiffs' counsel, and the reasonable fees and expenses of expert witnesses Dr G Perumal, Dr E Hodgson, Dr A Osman, and Dr P Matley.