Renier van Rensburg Attorneys filed an application on Monday for leave to appeal the dismissal of a nearly R10-million claim filed by a girl who suffered head injuries in a 2017 taxi accident. The claim, intended to compensate for loss of future earnings, was dismissed by the court over concerns regarding incomplete medical evidence.
The claimant, a 17-year-old girl, was nine years old at the time of the accident, which occurred on June 7, 2017, while she was traveling in a taxi with her mother. The accident left her with head trauma, which allegedly resulted in long-term cognitive issues, including memory problems, headaches, and difficulty focusing. She was discharged from the hospital shortly after the incident, but her condition has reportedly worsened over the years, affecting her academic performance and future career prospects.
In the original case, the girl’s legal representative, Advocate Aad den Hartog, sought a R10-million claim for loss of earnings, arguing that the traumatic brain injury she sustained had impaired her ability to pursue higher education, ultimately limiting her future earning potential. However, the judge dismissed the case on November 18, 2024, citing unconvincing medical evidence. Specifically, the court found that the medical records were incomplete, and much of the evidence relied on a virtual examination that took place four years after the accident.
The appeal application, filed by Renier van Rensburg Attorneys, argues that the court failed to properly consider the girl’s ongoing health issues, including heart palpitations, dizziness, and frequent headaches. It also criticizes the court for placing too much emphasis on incomplete medical records without considering additional corroborating evidence, such as post-accident symptoms. Furthermore, the appeal highlights that all parties had previously agreed that the girl suffered from a “complicated traumatic brain injury of severe degree,” a fact that the court did not address in its ruling.
Road Accident Fund (RAF) CEO Collins Letsoalo has strongly criticized the claim, calling it “meritless” and accusing the law firm of attempting to fraudulently secure money from the RAF. Letsoalo expressed his dissatisfaction with lawyers in the RAF system, claiming they were exploiting the fund for personal gain. He suggested that legal representatives were profiting excessively from cases, with some firms taking up to 25% of a claim’s payout.
In response, Gert Nell, a lawyer specializing in RAF claims, defended the legal profession, saying that lawyers must do substantial work to earn their fee. He also pointed to significant inefficiencies within the RAF, including the fund’s failure to pay claims for foreign nationals and individuals represented by medical aids, which he argued were illegal practices.
The RAF has been under scrutiny for its backlog of claims, poor financial management, and operational inefficiency. While Letsoalo has advocated for reforms, some critics argue that these changes may negatively impact the victims of road accidents.
The appeal for the RAF claim remains pending, with the legal battle highlighting ongoing tensions between the RAF, lawyers, and road accident victims.