A nurse who waited eight years before launching a R10m damages claim against the Minister of Health – for having been assaulted by a patient’s relative while he was on duty at a clinic – has failed to have his claim heard by the court because he filed it too late, reports TimesLIVE.
The Mpumalanga High Court dismissed the case, based on an exception raised by the Minister and the Mpumalanga Health MEC, that Madala John Mafuyeka’s claim had prescribed.
This means he filed his application more than three years after becoming aware that a debt was due to him. The court ruled that the claim had legally prescribed and could not be entertained.
On 1 June 2014, Mafuyeka had been attacked by the relative of a patient at the Thulamahashe Community Health Centre in Bushbuckridge for medical assistance. The patient, who was accompanied by a relative, was already struggling to breathe upon arrival, apparently due to her underlying medical conditions.
Mafuyeka was unable to resuscitate her and she died. The man with her then assaulted Mafuyeka, accusing him of causing her death, before security officers intervened and stopped the attack.
Mafuyeka’s claims, totalling R10m, stemmed from allegations of negligence by the Department of Health in failing to ensure his workplace was safe, as well as claims for emotional distress, pain and suffering, and future medical expenses.
In defending the claim, the Minister raised three special pleas, including prescription, which the court considered during a hearing in November.
The first special plea was that Mafuyeka’s claim was barred by the provisions of the Compensation for Occupational Injuries and Diseases Act (Coida).
Another was that Mafuyeka did not comply with the Institution of Legal Proceedings Against Certain Organs of State Act, in that he failed to give the Minister notice of his intent to institute legal proceedings within six months of the debt becoming due.
On the Coida plea, the Minister argued that Mafuyeka’s recourse lay under Coida and not against the Ministry or provincial Health Department, as the incident occurred during working hours.
Mpumalanga Deputy Judge President Takalani Ratshibvumo noted that section 25 of Coida limited benefits to accidents resulting in an employee’s disablement or death.
“According to the definition of ‘accident’ under Coida, only accidents arising ‘out of and in the course of an employee’s employment’ and resulting in personal injury, illness or death, qualify for benefits under its provisions.”
Ratshibvumo dismissed the Minister’s special plea, finding that the assault on Mafuyeka was not a risk incidental to his job as a nurse or medical caregiver.
He cited a Supreme Court of Appeal judgment in MEC for Health, Free State v DN, where a similar plea had been raised against a doctor who was raped while on duty by a member of the public.
In dismissing the plea, the SCA judgment stated: “The question that might rightly be asked is whether the act causing the injury was a risk incidental to the employment… I am unable to see how a rape perpetrated by an outsider on a doctor … arises out of the doctor’s employment. I cannot conceive of the risk of rape being incidental to such.”
Ratshibvumo concluded that Mafuyeka’s attack was likewise not incidental to his duties.
On the special plea of prescription, Mafuyeka denied that his claim had prescribed.
He argued that the running of prescription was interrupted by an express or tacit acknowledgment of debt by the employer. According to him, the employer signed a document, Annexure MAF 02, which he claimed amounted to an acknowledgment of liability.
He further argued that the employer’s payment of his hospital travel expenses also constituted acknowledgment of the debt.
“Assuming (Mafuyeka) was aware of the debt being due and payable on 10 June 2014, the date on which Annexure MAF 02 was completed, there is nothing in the form that appears to be an express or tacit acknowledgment of liability by the employer,” Ratshibvumo said.
He explained that Annexure MAF 02 was a form completed by Mafuyeka’s supervisor under Coida to enable an employee to claim compensation. In completing the form, the employer merely provided details of the injury, which were not in dispute.
Ratshibvumo added that even if completion of the form had interrupted prescription, which it did not, prescription would still have expired by 10 June 2017.
The judge said Mafuyeka appeared to suggest that he could not have been expected to acquire the necessary knowledge during the eight years after his injury until he consulted with his legal representative in January 2022.
“If prescriptions were to start running only after consultations with experts, prescription law would be rendered pointless and redundant,” he said.
See more from MedicalBrief archives:
Opposition to COID regulations grows with 130 bodies calling for scrapping
Action group calls for withdrawal of ‘catastrophic’ Compensation Fund regulations