In the latest development regarding the challenge to the medical tariffs promulgated last year for road accident victims claiming compensation from the Road Accident Fund (RAF), the court has now placed the RAF on terms to produce the documents on which the decision was based.
Gauteng High Court (Pretoria) Judge Ronel Tolmay last year suspended the implementation of the tariffs, ruling that her order would remain in place pending the outcome of a further application in which the court would be asked to review and set them aside.
The Pretoria News reports that the new tariffs, promulgated by Transport Minister Fikile Mbalula, would see medical professionals in the private sector being paid reduced amounts.
An urgent application was then launched by the National Council for Persons with Disabilities (NCPD) and the Law Society of South Africa (LLSA) saying this would be disastrous for road accident victims needing emergency or specialised care.
The proposed tariffs were so high that financially-strapped accident victims or those without medical aid would no longer be able to obtain the care they needed in the private sector.
Under the tariffs the applicants are now asking the court to overturn, the RAF would pay much less than the actual costs incurred, leaving accident victims out of pocket and with no other remedy.
The tariffs offer far less than the existing tariffs in that they also do not cover certain critical services, like air ambulances by helicopter, placing car crash victims at serious risks, said the LLSA, which with the NCPD, is challenging the constitutionality of these tariffs, calling them irrational, unreasonable and unjustifiably limiting the rights of access to healthcare.
After Tolmay’s order last year, placing the implementation of the tariffs on hold pending the review application, the RAF wanted to appeal the decision, but the judge refused this.
The RAF has since applied for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal, which is yet to determine the application.
The law society said the interdict remains binding in the interim.
The main review proceedings brought to set aside the impugned medical tariffs were initially set down to be heard this month, but the RAF failed to produce documents shedding light on the decision-making process.
The Transport Minister claimed the documents were not in his possession and had to be sought from the RAF which, in turn, refused their disclosure.
The LSSA and NCPD then had to pursue the production of these documents via an interlocutory application.
In the build-up to the hearing of this interlocutory application, Judge Ingrid Opperman issued directives ordering the RAF to file papers explaining their recalcitrance.
The RAF persisted in its refusal.
The judge subsequently granted an order directing the RAF to produce the documents within five days, on the basis that the documents are relevant to explain the decision-making process by the minister of transport to approve the impugned medical tariffs.
Opperman said the RAF’s conduct was “not only discourteous and unprofessional, but also the opposite of rule-abiding”, and when granting a punitive costs order against the RAF, asked the CEO and board chairperson to file affidavits explaining why they should not each be held personally liable for the costs of the interlocutory application.
See more from MedicalBrief archives:
RAF heads to ConCourt in battle against medical aid payments
RAF turns to Appeals Court over medical aids directive ruling
Triumph for medical schemes as RAF denied leave to appeal payment ruling