Waiting eight years to institute legal proceedings against the Minister of Health came at a high price for a nurse who was assaulted when a patient died under his watch; his R10 million claim was turned down because it was filed too late.

Madala Mafuyeka was attacked in 2014 while he worked as a nurse at Thulamahashe Community Health Centre in Mpumalanga.

A member of the public brought his relative there for medical assistance. The relative was already struggling to breathe upon her arrival, apparently due to underlying medical conditions. Mafuyeka was unable to resuscitate her, and she died.

The man who brought her to the clinic turned on Mafuyeka and accused him of having caused her death. The security guards on duty had to jump in and stop the attack.

Mafuyeka subsequently turned to the Mpumalanga High Court, sitting in Mbombela, where he claimed R10 million in damages from the minister as well as from the Mpumalanga health authorities.

He argued in court papers that the health authorities, as his employer, were negligent in failing to ensure that his workplace was safe. He also claimed emotional distress, pain and suffering, and future medical expenses.

The minister and the Mpumalanga MEC for health raised special pleas, which formed the basis of the trial before the court. The first was that Mafuyeka’s claim was precluded by the Compensation for Occupational Injuries and Diseases Act (COIDA), as he was injured while on duty, and that his claim had lapsed, as he only issued his summons in 2022. This, while the incident had already occurred in 2014.

In South Africa, a claim must be instituted within three years of the incident.

Regarding COIDA, Mafuyeka’s legal team argued that it did not apply because the injury was unrelated to his duties. The question was whether the attack arose out of, and in the course of, employment.

On this point, the court slammed the department and said that while the incident did occur during working hours, the attack was not a risk factor for his job as a nurse or medical caregiver.

“The attack was not incidental to his duties. On this basis, this special plea stands to be dismissed,” Deputy Judge President for Mpumalanga, Takalani Ratshibvuma, said.

Regarding the point by the department that his claim had lapsed, Mafuyeka’s lawyer argued that his employer acknowledged liability by completing the COIDA form. It was further submitted that by paying his hospital’s travelling expenses, the employer also constituted an acknowledgement of the debt.

In the alternative, Mafuyeka submitted that the prescription could only commence when the criminal trial of the attacker was finalised.

In defending his late claim, he also told the court that he only realised that he could institute civil action against the minister and the department after he met his lawyer in 2022.

But Judge Ratshibvuma said Mafuyeka’s assertions that he had to wait until the completion of the criminal trial have no bearing on this claim or its prescription, as the claim is not against the National Prosecution Authority.

The court also noted that he had instituted a damages claim against his attacker shortly after the incident, but he was unsuccessful owing to the man being unemployed.

This, the judge said, shows that he was aware of a delictual claim arising from that incident. “It is evident that the plaintiff was aware of the facts that give rise to the action against the defendants as far back as 2014,” the judge said in turning down his claim for being time-barred.

zelda.venter@inl.co.za

Source link