Medical experts who concluded – merely by looking at photographs – that a child had suffered brain injuries after a car accident, came under fire from an acting judge in the Gauteng High Court, who accused them of misleading the court and said this constituted “professional misconduct”, reports IOL.
A neurosurgeon had testified that by looking at the pictures of the boy, six years after the accident, he could see that the child had swelling on his head. This despite a CT scan done immediately after the accident finding that there was no brain injury. None of the hospital records revealed a brain injury either.
All of the other experts’ reports also mentioned the brain injury as it was contained in the neurosurgeon’s report.
One neurologist told the court she had concluded that the child had suffered a brain injury because the boy’s mother, who had instituted the damages claim against the Road Accident Fund, had told her so.
Acting Judge GD Moshoane noted that the mother had provided the pictures of the child to the neurosurgeon on the day of the assessment, and these are what assisted the neurosurgeon to conclude the injured child had suffered a head injury in the accident.
All of the opinions of the other experts. like the occupational therapist and the educational psychologist, were premised on a conclusion that the child sustained a head injury with neurocognitive deficits.
“These findings are premised on a wrong factual basis. Expert witnesses are there to assist a court with an opinion in areas where a court lacks competency. It is not the purpose of an expert witness to mislead a court,” the judge said.
He said such a misleading constitutes serious professional misconduct.
“This court is minded to refer its observations in this matter to the Health Professions Council of South Africa (HPCSA) for consideration whether a cause exists to investigate professional misconduct,” the judge added.
He said courts battle almost daily cases where the term “a lucrative head injury” is manufactured.
“It shall be a sad day if a finding is made that professionals aid in the manufacturing of non-existing head injuries.”
In finding no collaboration in the medical records of a head injury, except the pictures used by the experts to diagnose a brain injury “with a trained eye”, the judge turned down compensation for this specific category of injury.
See more from MedicalBrief archives:
Court sets aside complaint after HPCSA’s long delay in handling case
Psychologist to face misconduct probe over alleged ‘fabricated’ report
Medical expert witnesses ‘should not scapegoat doctors’, says MPS