The Supreme Court of Appeals.
Ben Bezuidenhout, GroundUp, Wikimedia, archive
- A doctor was found to be responsible for a patient’s brain injury.
- The man entered the emergency unit after an overdose of pills and alcohol.
- The doctor left the patient with the nursing staff, without adequately instructing him.
The Supreme Court of Appeals (SCA) has found a KwaZulu-Natal doctor responsible for the brain injury suffered by a man admitted as a patient in the emergency unit of Life Westville Hospital eight years ago.
The man, who was 43 years old at the time, was taken to the hospital emergency unit by his wife after he reportedly consumed alcohol and an unknown number of tablets.
Dr. Sudhir Mohun examined the man.
However, that night, the man became hypoxic and went into cardiac arrest, resulting in permanent brain damage.
Mohun was taking over from Doctors G Sanpersad, R Maharaj & Associates, a medical practice that provided clinical care in the emergency unit under terms of an agreement with the hospital.
In its judgment, the SCA found that Mohun was negligent when he left his patient in the care of nursing staff, without proper instruction.
The appeal court found the testimony of Professor André Retief Coetzee, an anesthetist specializing in cardiac and pulmonary procedures, to be “convincing, clear and based on logical reasoning”.
Mohun agreed with Coetzee that if hypoxia had been reacted to in time, cardiac arrest probably would not have occurred and the man would not have suffered brain damage.
READ | Gauteng Health faces R1.1bn in lawsuits for alleged negligence
Mohun also admitted that if he had checked on the man after 9:35 p.m. and until 10:00 p.m., he would have been able to prevent him from suffering brain damage.
The court found that the man’s history of alcohol and pill overdose should have caused a reasonable doctor in Mohun’s position to expect a gradual change in his patient’s breathing and oxygenation.
Therefore, it found that the doctor was negligent.
Mohun admitted that he should have given clear instructions to the nursing staff to remain constantly with the patient, as well as precisely why he should be monitored, “since drug and alcohol intake could affect his respiratory rate and lead to possible airway obstruction.” respiratory”. “.
With regard to the liability of Doctors G Sanpersad, R Maharaj & Associates, the SCA said:
Our law is clear that the principal is not liable for an independent contractor’s civil wrongs, except where the principal was personally at fault.
“It follows that there was simply no legal basis on which the second appellant could draw vicarious liability for the conduct of the first appellant.
“Therefore, based on the evidence before us, no case has been established to determine that the second appellant [the medical practice] was vicariously responsible for the offenses of the first appellant [Mohun].”
The SCA found that the medical practice was not liable for damages.
