- Khuthadzo Daswa sued Coca-Cola Beverages South Africa for damages after allegedly sustaining injuries while on duty at the company’s premises on 2 April 2020, claiming compensation, including past and future medical expenses.
- Daswa refused to sign a consent form allowing the company to obtain his medical records from the healthcare professionals who treated him, arguing that the request violated his privacy and fell outside discovery.
- The High Court ruled that the records were directly linked to the injuries and damages claimed, ordered Daswa to sign the consent form, and awarded costs against him.
An employee who sues for damages after allegedly sustaining injuries at work cannot refuse access to the medical records underlying that claim. The High Court in Polokwane confirmed this principle in a dispute between Coca-Cola Beverages South Africa (Pty) Ltd and Khuthadzo Daswa.
Daswa instituted action against Coca-Cola Beverages South Africa after he allegedly sustained injuries while on duty at the company’s premises on 2 April 2020. In his claim, he sought compensation for past and future medical expenses as well as general damages arising from the injuries he said were caused by the incident.
Because the claim relied heavily on the medical consequences of the alleged injury, Coca-Cola Beverages South Africa attempted to obtain the medical records of the healthcare professionals who treated Daswa after the incident.
When the company contacted Life Health Solutions, it was informed that the records could only be released with Daswa’s consent or through a subpoena. The company then wrote to Daswa requesting that he sign a consent form allowing access to the records.
Daswa refused. In response from his legal representatives, it was stated that “it is unclear what the basis is for your client’s request, as the only documents which the plaintiff intends to use during the trial had already been discovered and produced.”
Refusal leads to court application
Coca-Cola Beverages South Africa again requested the signed consent form, explaining that it needed access to the medical records from the hospitals and medical practitioners who treated Daswa following the alleged workplace injury.
Daswa maintained his refusal. The company then approached the High Court seeking an order compelling him to sign the consent form so that it could obtain the records necessary to investigate the claim.
The company argued that the refusal prevented it from properly evaluating the merits of the case and preparing its defence. It pointed out that Daswa was claiming damages that included future medical expenses estimated at R803 104.
Although certain medical expert reports had been disclosed, the company argued that the underlying treatment records from the doctors who treated Daswa had not been provided. Without those records, the company said its experts could not properly assess the injuries, treatment, or projected future medical costs.
Privacy arguments raised by plaintiff
Daswa opposed the application and argued that the request violated his constitutional right to privacy because medical records are confidential information protected by law.
He further argued that the request fell outside the discovery process and that the company was attempting to obtain documents beyond those already disclosed.
Daswa also relied on a pre-trial minute signed by the parties on 20 May 2024 and argued that the agreement bound the parties to the issues already defined for trial. According to him, the company could not deviate from that agreement without first obtaining the court’s permission.
Daswa further argued that the application amounted to a litigation tactic designed to delay the case and frustrate the litigation process.
Court balances privacy and fairness
Judge Pillay acknowledged that South African law protects the confidentiality of medical information and that legislation regulates access to medical records. However, the court emphasised that the dispute had to be assessed in the context of litigation where the plaintiff had placed his own medical condition in issue.
Judge Pillay explained, “The court, when considering the application, was required to balance the right to the protection of the privileged medical information, offset against the right of access to such information.”
Judge Pillay further stated that “it was imperative that the information required was relevant to the matter at hand and was not ancillary to the claim and the dispute between the parties.”
After examining the nature of the claim and the medical evidence relied upon by the plaintiff, the court found that the medical records were central to the dispute.
Judge Pillay stated, “The medical records were the founding documents flowing from this incident.” The judge explained that they documented the treatment received after the alleged injury and formed the basis of the damages claim.
Judge Pillay further held that “these medical records were relevant and necessary to the applicant’s defence.”
The court ultimately concluded that refusing access to the records undermined the fairness of the litigation process. Judge Pillay held, “The refusal by the respondent to sign the consent form was unwarranted and prejudicial to the applicant.”
Court compels consent and awards costs
After considering the submissions of both parties, the High Court concluded that the application should succeed.
Judge Pillay therefore ordered Daswa to furnish a signed consent form enabling Coca-Cola Beverages South Africa to obtain the medical records relating to the injury sustained on 2 April 2020.
Daswa was also ordered to pay the costs of the application, including counsel’s fees on Scale B.
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
