Seautlweng v Road Accident Fund
| Jurisdiction | http://justis.com/jurisdiction/166,South Africa |
| Judge | Van der Schyff J |
| Judgment Date | 11 September 2023 |
| Citation | 2023 JDR 3548 (GP) |
| Hearing Date | 15 August 2023 |
| Docket Number | 50871/2018 |
| Court | Gauteng Division, Pretoria |
Van der Schyff J:
Facts and experts’ opinions
The plaintiff is a 46-year-old female. She was injured in a motor vehicle collision on 10 November 2014. Both parties were represented. The plaintiff does not qualify as
2023 JDR 3548 p2
Van der Schyff J
having suffered a serious injury. The issues that remain to be resolved are the plaintiff’s future loss of earnings, or more precisely, her loss of earning capacity and past medical expenses.
The plaintiff suffered the following injuries: sprain and strain of the cervical spine, sprain and strain of the shoulder joint, injury of muscle/tendon rotator cuff, a soft tissue injury/bump on her forehead, bilateral soft tissue knee injury, and emotional shock and trauma.
The accident impacted the plaintiff’s general enjoyment of life and caused a mild to moderate loss of physical activity. Where she previously jogged 2km four times a week, frequently played netball, volleyball, and soccer, went to the gymnasium, and participated in fun runs, she discontinued these activities after the accident and now only walks 2km two to three times a week. She suffers from daily headaches, shoulder, knee, neck, and lower back pains. These also impact on her ability to sleep. The plaintiff’s fear of travelling resulted in her discontinuing being an ANC youth league secretary. She suffers from a mood disorder of depression, which is not solely attributable to the accident. [1] The clinical psychologist estimates that the accident contributed around 25% to her depression. Her depression is triggered by her pain and discomfort, post-accident weight increase, constant coughing, poor health and her grandmother’s death. She displays ongoing PTSD symptoms, has become forgetful, and suffers from situational inspired anxiety. Her anxiety and PTSD symptoms are solely relatable to the accident.
The abovementioned sequelae are usually considered in quantifying a plaintiff’s claim for general damages. The neuropsychologist, however, opines that the plaintiff’s psychological disturbances and pain significantly impact her cognitive functions. According to the psychiatrist, the plaintiff’s memory and concentration difficulties are caused by her psychiatric condition of chronic PTSD and depression.
2023 JDR 3548 p3
Van der Schyff J
The plaintiff is an exceptionally qualified individual. In addition to having obtained an MBA, she has various certificates. She completed her MBA after the accident and recently registered for a PhD, although she has yet to make good progress with her PhD.
The plaintiff’s work history can be summarised as follows: At the time of the accident, the plaintiff was employed as a Quality Control and Technical Support Officer for the City of Tshwane. She commenced her employment as such in August 2016. She returned to work on 16 March 2015, the accident having occurred in November 2014. She received her full salary during her recovery and is still employed in the same capacity. Before the accident, the plaintiff spent half her time in the office and half her time on sites, doing health inspections primarily between Pretoria and Bronkhorstspruit.
The plaintiff informed some expert witnesses that she intended to move to the private sector, working in a corporate environment or a mine in the safety and quality control field before the accident occurred. I pause to note that she did nothing concrete prior to the accident that substantiates this averment. I do not take this into consideration.
Dr. Birell initially indicated that the plaintiff suffered a loss of work capacity of about 6%. In a later assessment, Dr. Birell indicated that the plaintiff had pre-accident psychological/psychiatric difficulties, but that the accident has exacerbated more symptomology in this regard. He opined that she suffered a loss of work capacity solely as a result of the accident of 8% per year. I, however, have to have regard to the fact that Dr. Birell is an orthopaedic surgeon, and that the evaluation of psychiatric or psychological issues do not fall within his field of expertise. His opinion that the plaintiff’s weight gain contributes to her being uncomfortable and in pain is within his field of expertise. His observation that there was a deterioration in the plaintiff’s condition since the previous consultation can also not be gainsaid.
The clinical psychologist noted, already in January 2018, that the plaintiff is extremely unhappy at work, predominantly due to her pain and restrictions and internal politics and organisational matters. There was an incident, prior to
2023 JDR 3548 p4
Van der Schyff J
15 January 2018, [2] where she was relieved of a matter as a result of forgetfulness, which in his view seems to be an emotional consequence of the accident. The clinical psychologist notes that although the plaintiff experienced intrusive memories and thoughts about the accident, most had abated by the time she was evaluated by him. He informs that the plaintiff has extensive neurocognitive complaints, which are unlikely inspired by significant concussion. The plaintiff relives the trauma caused by the accident when she attends medico-legal appointments and sees motor accidents. Her symptoms, however, do not persist for long and are relatively minor, particularly when compared to her sudden panic attacks, which overshadow her PTSD symptoms. He reiterated that her PTSD features are secondary to her panic anxiety and mood disorder of depression. When the clinical psychologist evaluated the plaintiff, she did not receive psychological interventions for her current psychopathy, which led the clinical psychologist to opine that she was not functioning optimally. As a result, he cannot unambiguously state that she suffered permanent, long-term impairment. The clinical psychologist indicates that the plaintiff would benefit from psychotherapeutic treatment since these interventions have been proven effective when treating patients with similar complaints to those of the plaintiff.
The neuropsychologist [3] indicates that the plaintiff is currently functioning below her potential both in the workplace and in her further studies. He opines that her chronic depression is attributed to her experience of pain and psychological traumatisation. This is in keeping with the expected effects of a chronic post-traumatic anxiety disorder. Dr. Mazabow also indicates that the plaintiff would likely benefit from psychotherapeutic treatment of her depression and anxiety. In the neuropsychologist’s view the plaintiff will likely remain considerably more psychologically vulnerable even following psychotherapeutic treatment, especially if her pain symptoms persist.
2023 JDR 3548 p5
Van der Schyff J
The psychiatrist recorded that the plaintiff did not come across as severely depressed, clinically there was no overt depression or anxiety. She does show ongoing symptoms of PTSD. He noted, however, that PTSD is a potentially treatable condition. The psychiatrist indicates that the fact the plaintiff remained functional, occupationally, and socially, up until the breakup in her relationship with her youngest daughter’s father, is a good prognostic factor. Other positive prognostic factors are that the plaintiff has previously experienced a good outcome from previous psychiatric treatment, she is above average intelligent and a good candidate for psychotherapy because she is talkative. He indicated that the plaintiff does need psychiatric therapy, and indicates which medication have been shown to be more effective in treating depression associated with chronic pain.
The occupational therapist notes that the plaintiff meets most of the physical requirements of her work, however, she does not...
To continue reading
Request your trial