Schickerling v Wolff (2007/6369) [2016] ZAGPJHC 385 (26 July 2016)

Schickerling v Wolff (2007/6369) [2016] ZAGPJHC 385 (26 July 2016)

The court found that the plaintiff failed to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that the defendant negligently diagnosed her with Alzheimer’s disease or communicated such a diagnosis to her. The hearsay evidence from the prior prescription trial was disallowed as it could not be tested for reliability and admitting it would prejudice the defendant’s right to a fair trial. The objective medical reports from other specialists did not support the plaintiff’s allegation, and the expert evidence agreed that the defendant took appropriate steps by referring the plaintiff to other experts. The plaintiff did not call key witnesses who could have corroborated her version. The court concluded...

Citation
[2016] ZAGPJHC 385
Parties
Plaintiff: Schickerling Z A NO; Defendant: Wolff Edward
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
26 July 2016
Case Number
2007/6369
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Final Judgment
Outcome
Plaintiff’s action dismissed with costs.
Judges
Victor
Legal Topics
Medical Malpractice, Negligence, Expert Evidence, Hearsay Admissibility, Rule 30a Application
Delict Civil Procedure Medical Malpractice Negligence Expert Evidence Hearsay Admissibility Rule 30a Application

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Schickerling Z A NO

Plaintiff

Wolff Edward

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant, a clinical psychologist, negligently misdiagnosed the plaintiff with Alzheimer’s disease and communicated this diagnosis to her, causing psychological harm and loss of earnings.
  2. 2 Whether the defendant breached contractual or delictual duties owed to the plaintiff in the course of treatment.
  3. 3 Whether hearsay evidence from a prior prescription trial could be admitted to prove the alleged misdiagnosis.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff failed to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that the defendant negligently diagnosed her with Alzheimer’s disease or communicated such a diagnosis to her. The hearsay evidence from the prior prescription trial was disallowed as it could not be tested for reliability and admitting it would prejudice the defendant’s right to a fair trial. The objective medical reports from other specialists did not support the plaintiff’s allegation, and the expert evidence agreed that the defendant took appropriate steps by referring the plaintiff to other experts. The plaintiff did not call key witnesses who could have corroborated her version. The court concluded...

Court Disposition

Plaintiff’s action dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The action is dismissed with costs.
  • The costs include the costs of one senior counsel.