Limpopo Judge Amends Child's RAF Claim From R11 Million to R800K Due to Disputable Medical Opinions

A Limpopo mother's bid to secure R11 million from the Road Accident Fund (RAF) on behalf of her daughter who was struck by a vehicle suffered a significant setback when the presiding judge reduced the compensation to R800,000. Acting Judge E Mashamba of the Limpopo High Court made this determination based on the controversy surrounding the child’s medical assessments after the accident.

In 2015, the child, who was only four years old at the time, was involved in a devastating incident that saw her hit by a car while heading to a tuck shop. Immediately thereafter, the driver of the vehicle took the young victim to a clinic; her mother soon joined them, and both were transferred to a hospital. Remarkably, the child was released from medical care on the day of the accident.

Despite this, medical consultants, including an orthopaedic surgeon, neurosurgeon, and various psychologists, later weighed in on the child's condition over the ensuing years, leading up to the elaboration of the sizeable R11m claim.

Actuaries computed her potential future lost earnings as a consequence of a postulated severe head injury at nearly R9 million, with additional claims made for anticipated expenses and general damages. However, the judge found significant inconsistencies in the medical opinions provided - specifically highlighting a lack of consensus on whether the child lost consciousness during the crash, which would have been a critical indicator of the severity of her head injury.

Despite one industrial psychologist’s projection that the child would not meet her pre-accident scholastic potential, the judge placed emphasis on the clinical psychologist’s findings that indicated no compromise to the child's cognitive abilities as a result of the accident.

The extensive contradictions among the specialists' perspectives on how the child's trauma would affect her educational performance and subsequent earning ability led to the conclusion that the child's injuries would not adversely affect her school performance or future earnings.

Ultimately, the court’s decision was influenced by the clinical psychologist’s opinion that she retains post-traumatic stress disorder and psychosocial issues, which could potentially impact her future income modestly; thus, resulting in a compensation order of R880,947 – a sum significantly less than the amount initially claimed.

This landmark judgment underscores the complexity and nuances of South Africa's legal system when addressing personal injury claims against the RAF and the importance of credible and coherent medical evidence in substantiating such claims.