Meyers v MEC, Department of Health , Eastern Cape (1010/2018) [2020] ZASCA 3; [2020] 2 All SA 377 (SCA); 2020 (3) SA 337 (SCA) (4 March 2020)

Meyers v MEC, Department of Health , Eastern Cape (1010/2018) [2020] ZASCA 3; [2020] 2 All SA 377 (SCA); 2020 (3) SA 337 (SCA) (4 March 2020)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the appellant did not discharge the onus of proving negligence on the part of Dr Vogel. The evidence established that Dr Vogel was an experienced surgeon who complied with the standard precautions and the ten commandments of gallbladder surgery. The injuries to the bile duct were minor and occurred in the course of teasing off adhesions in Calot’s triangle, a recognised danger area where such injuries are an inherent risk of the procedure. There was no evidence that Dr Vogel failed to identify the anatomical structures, used electro-diathermy or sharp instruments inappropriately, or failed to convert to an open procedure when required. The expert...

Citation
[2020] ZASCA 3
Parties
Appellant: Felicia Meyers; Respondent: Member of the Executive Council, Department of Health, Eastern Cape
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
4 March 2020
Case Number
1010/2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From the Eastern Cape Division of the High Court, Grahamstown
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
Ponnan JA, Plasket JA, Mbatha JA, Koen AJA, Dolamo AJA
Legal Topics
Medical Negligence, Aquilian Liability, Standard of Care, Onus of Proof, Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy
Delict Medical Negligence Aquilian Liability Standard of Care Onus of Proof Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy

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 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Felicia Meyers

Appellant

Member of the Executive Council, Department of Health, Eastern Cape

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From the Eastern Cape Division of the High Court, Grahamstown

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant discharged the onus of establishing negligence on the part of the surgeon who caused two small injuries to her bile duct during surgery to remove her gall bladder.
  2. 2 Whether the injuries to the bile duct were caused by a failure to comply with the standard of care expected of a reasonable surgeon performing a laparoscopic cholecystectomy.
  3. 3 Whether the failure to convert from a laparoscopic to an open procedure constituted negligence.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the appellant did not discharge the onus of proving negligence on the part of Dr Vogel. The evidence established that Dr Vogel was an experienced surgeon who complied with the standard precautions and the ten commandments of gallbladder surgery. The injuries to the bile duct were minor and occurred in the course of teasing off adhesions in Calot’s triangle, a recognised danger area where such injuries are an inherent risk of the procedure. There was no evidence that Dr Vogel failed to identify the anatomical structures, used electro-diathermy or sharp instruments inappropriately, or failed to convert to an open procedure when required. The expert...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs.
  • The order of the full court is confirmed.