The respondent, a general medical practitioner, was shot in the left leg during a robbery on 7 August 2019. He sustained a fractured femur and an associated vascular injury evidenced by an absent pedal pulse. He was initially treated at Standerton Hospital by the appellant, another general practitioner. Despite appreciating the urgency of the vascular injury, the appellant delayed arranging transfer to definitive care by prioritising an appendectomy on another patient, ordering X‑rays, and failing to ensure direct communication with the receiving specialist. The respondent was transferred to Pretoria East Hospital, which lacked vascular surgery facilities, due to incomplete communication about the vascular injury. Further delays ensued before eventual revascularisation at Pretoria Heart Hospital, approximately nine hours after the injury. Despite revascularisation, the respondent developed compartment syndrome and his left leg was amputated through the knee. The respondent sued for damages based on medical negligence.
The appeal was dismissed with costs, including the costs of two counsel. The decision of the full court holding the appellant liable for medical negligence was upheld.
The case reinforces the duty of medical practitioners, including general practitioners, to prioritise urgent care based on objective medical risk, to adhere strictly to transfer protocols, and to communicate fully with receiving facilities. It affirms that delays in referral and incomplete disclosure can ground liability where time‑critical injuries are involved, and it clarifies the approach to expert medical evidence and causation in South African medical negligence claims.