Mokoena v Road Accident Fund (2010/38170) [2011] ZAGPJHC 201 (15 December 2011)

Mokoena v Road Accident Fund (2010/38170) [2011] ZAGPJHC 201 (15 December 2011)

The court found that the defendant's special pleas were without merit. Regulation 3 does not require a physical examination for assessment of serious injury; reliance on medical records and reports is permissible. The narrative test under Regulation 3(1)(b)(iii) can be applied independently of the AMA Guides and WPI rating, especially where the injury claimed is not covered by the AMA Guides. The occupational therapist's completion of annexures did not invalidate the RAF4 form, as the form was completed by a registered medical practitioner. The defendant's rejection of the RAF4 form was untimely and procedurally improper, having occurred almost a year after submission and without...

Citation
[2011] ZAGPJHC 201
Parties
Plaintiff: Mokoena, Thabo Richard; Defendant: Road Accident Fund
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
15 December 2011
Case Number
2010/38170
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Judgment After Special Pleas Argued as Point in Limine
Outcome
Special pleas dismissed with costs on attorney and client scale; general damages settled and awarded; further orders made regarding future medical costs and expert costs.
Judges
B H Mbha
Legal Topics
Road Accident Fund Act, Serious Injury Assessment, Raf4 Form, General Damages, Medical Evidence, Costs Orders
Civil Procedure Delict Road Accident Fund Act Serious Injury Assessment Raf4 Form General Damages Medical Evidence Costs Orders

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mokoena, Thabo Richard

Plaintiff

Road Accident Fund

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Judgment After Special Pleas Argued as Point in Limine

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a medical practitioner must physically examine a claimant before completing a RAF4 form.
  2. 2 Whether an assessment under the narrative test can be conducted without a Whole Person Impairment (WPI) assessment under the AMA Guides.
  3. 3 Whether an occupational therapist is competent to complete a RAF4 form.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the defendant's special pleas were without merit. Regulation 3 does not require a physical examination for assessment of serious injury; reliance on medical records and reports is permissible. The narrative test under Regulation 3(1)(b)(iii) can be applied independently of the AMA Guides and WPI rating, especially where the injury claimed is not covered by the AMA Guides. The occupational therapist's completion of annexures did not invalidate the RAF4 form, as the form was completed by a registered medical practitioner. The defendant's rejection of the RAF4 form was untimely and procedurally improper, having occurred almost a year after submission and without...

Court Disposition

Special pleas dismissed with costs on attorney and client scale; general damages settled and awarded; further orders made regarding future medical costs and expert costs.

Orders

  • The special pleas are dismissed with costs on the scale as between attorney and client.
  • The defendant is ordered to pay to the plaintiff the sum of R80,000.00 (Eighty Thousand Rand).