A N obo E N v MEC for Health, Eastern Cape (585/2018) [2019] ZASCA 102 (15 August 2019)

Delict – medical negligence – child suffering cerebral palsy as a result of acute
profound hypoxic ischaemic event during labour – whether negligence of hospital staff was
causally connected to the child’s brain damage – causation not established on the facts –
appeal upheld

Claim by mother on behalf of child suffering from cerebral
palsy in consequence of acute profound hypoxic ischaemia intrapartum –
whether hospital staff was negligent in failing to perform caesarean
section more promptly – whether hospital was negligent in not having
second theatre for caesarean sections – whether staff was negligent in the
way the theatre was used during the day in question – whether staff was
negligent in failing to refer mother to neighbouring hospital – whether
staff was negligent in failing to apply intrauterine resuscitation –
negligence not proved – in any event, not proved that non-negligent
action would have averted the acute profound hypoxic ischaemia

Evidence – statement by party that opponent’s expert opinion can be handed in as evidence – not a ‘fact admitted’ on the record of proceedings within the meaning of s 15 of the Civil Proceedings Evidence Act 25 of 1965 – decision on expert evidence for the court – party cannot bind court to opinion of opponent’s expert – court entitled to make findings contrary to opinions of experts.

Delict – Medical negligence – failure to monitor the appellant and foetus during labour – whether hospital staff was negligent – whether negligence causally connected to the child’s brain damage – negligence and causation established – appeal dismissed.

Delict – claim for medical negligence damages – minor born with brain injury sustained during birth – whether hospital staff were negligent – if so, whether such negligence caused the brain injury – evidence did not establish that the hospital staff were negligent

Delict – medical negligence – delay in transferring a patient to definitive care – whether medical practitioner’s conduct was negligent – whether negligence was causally linked to the amputation of the patient’s leg.