South Africa: The Trouble With Oppelt And The Treatment Of Evidence In Medical Negligence Matters

Last Updated: 14 March 2016
Article by Wietske Felmore and Athol Gordon

Has the recent Constitutional Court decision of Oppelt v Head: Health, Department of Health Provincial Administration: Western Cape1 resulted in the effective substitution of expert evidence by the logical reasoning of court? If so, the question is, where does this leave us?


The courts' task of dealing with medical negligence matters has never been an easy one.  It involves weighing the act or omission of a medical practitioner against the standard of care of a reasonably skilled practitioner in that particular branch of the profession at the time.2  A practitioner will be found to have acted negligently if a reasonably skilled practitioner would have foreseen the likelihood of harm occurring, taken steps to guard against it and the practitioner in question failed to take those steps.  To assist the courts in determining what this standard of care entails, expert evidence is generally led by the parties.

However, difficulty often arises when the court is faced with two conflicting experts' opinions.  In Michael and Another v Linksfield Park Clinic and Another3, the Supreme Court of Appeal held that "A defendant can be properly held liable, despite the support of a professional opinion sanctioning the issue, if that body of opinion is not capable of withstanding logical analysis and is therefore not reasonable."

In Medi-Clinic v Vermeulen4, the SCA held that the court's duty is to evaluate whether and to what extent the opposing expert evidence is founded on logical reasoning.  The SCA held that if two experts have opposing views which are both based on logical reasoning, it cannot choose to simply prefer one expert's evidence over that of the other.  It held that "If a medical practitioner acts in accordance with a reasonable and respectable body of medical opinion, his conduct cannot be condemned as negligent merely because another reasonable and respectable body of medical opinion would have acted differently." 

The result of the abovementioned judgments was that where both experts' opinions are based on logical reasoning, the plaintiff's claim could not succeed.

The Oppelt decision

Towards the end of 2015, the Constitutional Court ("CC") reconsidered this approach to assessing expert evidence in medical negligence matters in the majority judgment handed down by Molemela, AJ in the Oppelt case. The facts were briefly as follows: in 2002, a 17 year old male sustained severe spinal injuries during a rugby match.  He was initially taken to Wesfleur Hospital, and was then transferred via ambulance to Groote Schuur Hospital.  After arriving at Groote Schuur, Oppelt was transferred to Conradie Hospital's specialist spinal cord injury unit where closed reduction surgery was performed. Oppelt was rendered quadriplegic.

Oppelt instituted a delictual action in the High Court alleging negligence on the part of the defendant's employees due to delayed treatment.  In support of his claim, Oppelt relied on the expert evidence of Dr Newton, an orthopaedic surgeon who had been in charge of the Conradie Hospital spinal cord injuries unit some years previously and who testified that Oppelt would have had a 64% chance of a full recovery had the closed reduction been performed within four hours of his injury. 

Dr Welsh, a Neurosurgeon, gave evidence for the defendant. He testified that while the prognosis for the victim of an incomplete spinal cord injury is better when treated earlier, Dr Newton's theory (no pun intended) was unreliable as there is no consensus within the medical fraternity regarding the relationship between the lapse of time between the sustaining of an injury and its decompression and whether this affects the neurological outcome.  Dr Welsh classified scientific data into three categories of reliability, with class three data being the least reliable because it leaves room for scientific bias, and into which Dr Newton's evidence should be placed.5

Oppelt was successful in the High Court, which found that Dr Newton's evidence was "well-reasoned and logical" and that there was no acceptable evidence adduced by the defendant to refute it. 

The defendant appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal ("SCA") which upheld the appeal.  In its unanimous decision, Swain JA evaluated Dr Newton's theory by firstly looking at the reliability of the evidence upon which it is based; and secondly, by examining Dr Newton's reasoning.  The SCA found that Oppelt had failed to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that Dr Newton's view that decompressing a spinal injury within four hours of the injury would probably lead to complete recovery was sound. The SCA also found that it was not foreseeable to the defendant's employees that failure to follow Dr Newton's method would result in paralysis. 

The Oppelt Constitutional Court decision

Oppelt further appealed to the Constitutional Court ("CC"), which considered whether legal causation had been established by Oppelt. 

The majority CC judgment questioned whether the defendant's employees knew or ought reasonably to have known that spinal cord injuries were to be treated with urgency at the Conradie Hospital and not later than four hours as per Dr Newton's theory. The CC emphasised the defendant's failure to lead evidence that its employees were unaware of the urgency to arrange a decompression within four hours.  The CC also criticised the failure to deviate from the provincial health department protocols for referrals and treatment in an emergency situation and found this failure to contravene Section 27(3) of the Constitution which provides that "no-one may be refused emergency medical treatment".

The CC considered the test in the Linksfield Park Clinic decision which deals with the evaluation of conflicting medical experts' opinions, finding that "the court is not bound to absolve a defendant from liability for allegedly negligent treatment or diagnosis just because evidence of expert opinion, genuinely held, is that the treatment or diagnosis in issue accorded with sound medical practice.  The court must be satisfied that such opinion has a logical basis, in other words that the expert has considered comparative risks and benefits and has reached a defensible conclusion."6

The CC then referenced the House of Lords decision of Dingley v The Chief Constable, Strathclyde Police7 which explained the difference between the "scientific and the judicial measure of proof" and which reminds the court to refrain from applying the standards set by experts and to decide whether a case has been made out on a balance of probabilities.

The majority decision of the CC was that the SCA erred in rejecting Dr Newton's evidence. The SCA's emphasis was on scientific data without taking cognisance of the weight of Dr Newton's reasoning and experience as a whole.  In particular, the SCA erred in the following respects:

  1. Dr Newton's evidence was reasonable and logical and therefore overcomes the Linksfield Park Clinic test;
  2. Dr Newton's evidence was partially peer-reviewed and accepted, and was about to be published in a reputable journal;
  3. Dr Newton's explanation as to why he could not present Class 1 data was plausible and a lack of general acceptance of his theory should not cause its rejection.
  4. The SCA did not evaluate the evidence as a whole and on a balance of probabilities but focussed on scientific proof;
  5. Dr Newton's study spanned the evaluation of spinal cord injuries over a period of 12 years at Conradie Hospital and therefore the sample should not have been criticised as being too small.

The CC criticised the SCA's rejection of Dr Newton's evidence which it considered to be based on logical reasoning.  The CC warned that "Logical theories put forward by experts, not gainsaid by other experts, should not be scoffed at without a basis."8

In its conclusion, the CC rejected the evidence of Dr Welsh in favour of Dr Newton and found that "The respondent constructively refused to provide the necessary emergency medical treatment and breached its legal duty to provide the applicant with medical treatment promptly or within the required four hours and thus acted unlawfully."

How the Oppelt decision has changed the way disputed expert evidence is considered

The CC effectively substituted its own logical reasoning, for that of the expert's evidence before it.  It made a decision based on its "gut-feel" without adequately taking into account the views of the medical community on the scientific data on which the expert's evidence was based. It favoured the theory of Dr Newton over the evidence of Dr Welsh even though Dr Newton's theory was (in 2002) just that: a theory. One of the reasons listed by the CC for accepting Dr Newton's theory was that, in their view, "A lack of general acceptance of Dr Newton's theory cannot, without more, warrant a rejection of his theory9". Does this mean that simply because a theory propounded by a medical expert has not been rejected by his peers, it is reliable for judicial purposes? We respectfully disagree.

Common sense dictates that a propounded theory may not be rejected for a number of reasons.  Primary among these is that there may be no scientific data available to gainsay it at the time.

With respect, the decision seems flawed.  If one were to assume for the moment that both experts' evidence was based on logical reasoning and supported by a school of thought accepted within the medical fraternity, in those circumstances the plaintiff's claim should not have succeeded because the plaintiff would not have proven his case on a balance of probabilities.

Turning briefly to the minority judgment of Cameron, J (with whom Jappie, J concurred), that found Oppelt was given appropriate emergency medical treatment and that "in light of the desperate situation of resource scarcity and pressure on the medical personnel, we cannot say he was inappropriately treated."

We are of the view that the minority judgment should be preferred, because it correctly reaffirms the test for determining medical negligence, namely whether in light of all the circumstances a reasonable medical professional would have foreseen the damage and taken steps to avoid it. Cameron, J found that Newton's theory was "brand new" in 2002 and that no academic publications directly supported his approach.10 The minority also found that, at that time, specialist opinions contrary to Newton's theory were current and that Newton felt the need to "evangelise" his theory at conferences and the like.

Ultimately, Cameron J was of the view that Dr Newton's four hour cut-off period was a theory among many other theories and interestingly, was published only nine years after the incident. The minority consequently found that the doctors and the Department were not negligent.


Perhaps one the most disturbing effects of the Oppelt decision is that it could change the way doctors treat their patients. A doctor may well follow a newly-proposed modality of treatment on a patient to escape the Oppelt criticism only for later study and research to find that the theory was flawed.  Is this what we would have?


1 2015 (12) BCLR 1471 (CC)

2 Van Wyk v Lewis 1924 AD 438, 444

3 [2002] 1 All SA 384 (A) 395 at para 39

4 [2014] JOL 32360 (SCA) 5 at para 5

5 Oppelt v The Head: Health, Department of Health, Provincial Administration, Western Cape & Others.  Western Cape High Court case 2094/07. 21 November 2012 (Unreported) at para 56.1

6 Michael and Another v Linksfield Park Clinic and Another [2002] 1 All SA 384 (A) 394 at para 37

7 2000 SC (HL) 77

8 2015 (12) BCLR 1471 (CC) 1487 at para 44

9 Oppelt, op cit, 1486 at para 40

10 Oppelt, op cit, 1506 at para 120

The Trouble With Oppelt And The Treatment Of Evidence In Medical Negligence Matters

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Wietske Felmore
Some comments from our readers…
“The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable”
“I often find critical information not available elsewhere”
“As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”

Mondaq Advice Centre (MACs)
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.