MEC for Health and Social Development of Gauteng Provincial Government v Machete (A70/2021; 69859/2017) [2023] ZAGPPHC 21 (20 January 2023)

MEC for Health and Social Development of Gauteng Provincial Government v Machete (A70/2021; 69859/2017) [2023] ZAGPPHC 21 (20 January 2023)

The court found that although there was a failure by the hospital staff to monitor the foetal heart rate every 30 minutes as prescribed by the guidelines, the monitoring at 08h00 and 10h00 showed no abnormalities requiring intervention. The injury suffered by the minor was of an acute profound type, occurring...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2023] ZAGPPHC 21
Parties
Appellant: MEC for Health & Social Development of Gauteng Provincial Government; Respondent: Tebogo Evah Machete
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Case Number
A70/2021; 69859/2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment on Liability in Medical Negligence; Appeal Heard by Full Court
Outcome
Appeal upheld; order of the High Court set aside; plaintiff's claim dismissed with costs.
Judges
MA Lukhaimane, AJ Motha, CJ van der Westhuizen
Legal Topics
Medical Negligence, Vicarious Liability, Causation, Standard of Care, Expert Evidence, Hospital Records
Delict Civil Procedure Family and Children Medical Negligence Vicarious Liability Causation Standard of Care Expert Evidence +1 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

MEC for Health & Social Development of Gauteng Provincial Government

Appellant

Tebogo Evah Machete

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment on Liability in Medical Negligence; Appeal Heard by Full Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the hospital staff were negligent in monitoring the respondent during labour.
  2. 2 Whether any negligence caused the minor's hypoxic ischemic injury and resultant cerebral palsy.
  3. 3 Whether the failure to monitor and expedite delivery constituted a breach of duty resulting in liability.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that although there was a failure by the hospital staff to monitor the foetal heart rate every 30 minutes as prescribed by the guidelines, the monitoring at 08h00 and 10h00 showed no abnormalities requiring intervention. The injury suffered by the minor was of an acute profound type, occurring immediately before delivery, and not a partial prolonged injury that could have been prevented by earlier monitoring or intervention. Expert evidence and joint minutes confirmed that the acute event was sudden and not foreseeable or preventable by the staff's conduct prior to delivery. Therefore, the respondent failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the breach of duty...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; order of the High Court set aside; plaintiff's claim dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is upheld.
  • The order of the High Court is set aside and replaced with: The plaintiff's claim is dismissed with costs.