Articles
In accordance with the practices and procedures governed By the Health Professionals Act a psychologist who does not have a medical degree is not capable of making a diagnosis as to whether a person has or has not sustained an injury or whether such a person is incapable of managing his own affairs. Such a professional can not prescribe medication, and is only trained to administer psychotherapy. Such a professional is not a medical practitioner. Furthermore, in terms of the rules of the High Court a curator may not be appointed unless two medical practitioners who have examined the patient have conducted tests and had come to appropriate logical and reasoned conclusions certify that as a result of the examination may have conducted and the nature of the injury sustained by the patient he is incapable of managing his own affairs. This application was deficient in that neither of the medical witnesses certified properly in terms of the Rules and one of them is not a medical practitioner.
The application contained an affidavit signed by the nephew of Mr T. This affidavit, states that he has read the affidavits of the medical witnesses and in view of their findings supports the application for the appointment of the Advocate as a curator. The affidavit appears to have been signed by Mr T's nephew in the presence of a commissioner of oaths in Rosebank. The reader is requested to remember that Mr T's nephew already informed us he had never been to the Attorneys office in Rosebank had never signed the affidavit in the presence of a Commissioner of Oaths and was informed by the Claims canvasser that he (Mr T's nephew) would be appointed as curator in view of Mr T's difficulties as a result of his injuries and not because he lacked mental capacity. We have also ascertained that the affidavit of the Orthopaedic surgeon purports to have been signed before a Commissioner of Oaths in Rosebank yet he claims to have signed it in his surgery at Natalspruit Hospital.
As recently as Thursday 20th November 2008, the claims handler called Mr T and his nephew. Both advised him they were re instituting the mandate given to our firm. The Claims handler then offered to attend at the home of Mr T to "give then something". We leave it to the reader's imagination to guess what.
On the same date a secretary in the employ of the new Attorney telephoned Mr T's nephew and she attempted to explain why a curator was appointed by the Court. She claimed that Mr T sustained serious head injuries and could not manage his own affairs and this was confirmed by a neuro surgeon and the orthopaedic surgeon both of whom, said she, examined Mr T thoroughly. Mr T's nephew then averred that we had obtained a trial date and thus we should continue the matter in terms of Mr T's wishes. She then countered with the notion that her firm would take over the new date from us. This we may add without extending to us the courtesy of being paid for our services. At that stage the conversation was abruptly terminated.
This matter, we will handle as vigorously uncompromisingly and fearlessly in order to obtain just compensation for our Client, in the same manner as we would for any other Client. What has developed with this illustrious new firm of Attorneys who practice in opulent offices in Rosebank? Watch this space.
…………………………………………
VICKY BOVE AND LES KOBRIN
