Dr F Kluever v De Goede

The respondent, Michiel Jacobus de Goede, a promising young rugby player, sustained a ruptured patella tendon during a rugby match in April 2007. He was initially misdiagnosed at 1 Military Hospital as having a sprained knee. Five days later, an orthopaedic surgeon outside the military hospital correctly diagnosed a patella tendon rupture. Dr Felicia Kluever, an orthopaedic surgeon employed at 1 Military Hospital, performed surgery to repair the tendon on 13 April 2007. The respondent experienced persistent difficulty in regaining full knee function. Subsequent rehabilitation revealed a high riding patella. A second surgery was performed by Dr Bhawani to remove a circulage wire, but the condition did not improve. In 2008, a further orthopaedic surgeon diagnosed a patella alta caused by improper primary repair and performed remedial surgery. The damage was irreversible, ending the respondent’s rugby career. The respondent sued Dr Kluever, Dr Bhawani, and the Minister of Defence (vicariously) for damages based on medical negligence.

The appeal was dismissed with costs, including the costs of two counsel. The declaration of liability against the Minister of Defence stood.

The case is an important authority on medical negligence in South African law, particularly in the context of orthopaedic surgery. It reinforces the application of the Mitchell v Dixon test, clarifies the evaluation of conflicting expert evidence, and confirms that inexperienced practitioners must take additional precautions. It also affirms state liability for negligent medical treatment provided at public hospitals.