A judge has dismissed the second legal bid by a former Potchefstroom Hospital patient to claim damages from the North West Province Health MEC after a drip mechanism broke off in his arm, and, he claims, has left him impaired.
IOL reports that Magiel du Plessis turned to the North West High Court (Mafikeng), where he claimed damages alleging that because his right arm was damaged in the process, he can no longer work as a boilermaker and use the arm to operate heavy tools.
The High Court earlier dismissed his claim and concluded that it is not the medical practitioners’ fault that the drip was faulty and that a portion broke off in his arm.
Unhappy with that finding, Du Plessis appealed it before a full court – three judges.
The hospital’s defence is that when the drip was inserted into his arm, it was not known that it was faulty. The hospital, in denying any negligence, said it was not the intention of its employees to use a faulty drip.
Du Plessis testified that he was admitted to the hospital with stomach problems, and when staff wanted to insert a drip into his arm, he asked them not to do it as he is allergic to drips. But, according to him, they proceeded. However, the drip broke and he was told he needed an immediate operation on the arm.
When he regained consciousness, staff “conducted scans all over his body”. Nothing was found, but they told him they were looking for the drip that had broken.
He said he has suffered problems with his right arm ever since then.
Acting Judge JT Maodi, who penned the appeal judgment, rejected his claim that he is allergic to a drip, commenting that drips normally consist of needles and tubes, and that a person might be allergic to the contents of a drip but not the device itself.
He added that as much as the faultiness of the drip is not in issue, the appellant still bears the onus to prove negligence, and that it remains doubtful whether the damages were caused by the broken drip or the emergency operation thereafter.
He said the emergency surgery might have caused the damage if it were not done properly, but this was not Du Plessis’s case; he blamed the faulty drip.
“No evidence was led by the appellant on the processes involved in the handling of drips or protocols when drips are administered. This is crucial in establishing negligence and liability of the respondent.”
The judge added that just because a drip broke does not mean standards of care or protocols were breached or that there was negligence. He said that the drips used by a specific hospital are likely to be provided in bulk by the same supplier. This might result in a few of them being faulty.
“The appellant would have been better placed if he had adduced evidence that in the few days preceding his operation, there had been a case or cases of faulty drips found at the Potchefstroom Hospital,” the judge said in dismissing his appeal.
IOl article – Legal setback for patient as court rules on faulty drip case (Open access)
See more from MedicalBrief archives:
SA study highlights need to monitor IV antibiotic use in hospitals
North West crisis a ‘silent killer’ say doctors
Doctor who lost his licence after 4 deaths may face further court action