- Two injured workers were declared 100 percent permanently disabled after tribunals assessed them at just 17 percent and 13 percent.
- The High Court found the tribunals applied a robot-like, mechanical or tick-box exercise instead of properly evaluating the evidence.
- Judge RCA Henney ruled that internal policy guidelines cannot replace the law when deciding workplace compensation claims.
The human body cannot be divided into mathematical fractions to determine whether a person is permanently disabled, the High Court in the Western Cape has ruled. It overturned compensation tribunal decisions that found two injured workers to be only 17 percent and 13 percent disabled.
The consolidated judgment arose from appeals by Elizabeth Hartzenberg and Jonatan Jonas against the Presiding Officers of the Tribunals, the Compensation Commissioner, the Director-General of the Department of Labour, and the Minister of Labour.
After battling the compensation system for ten years and five years respectively, both workers were declared 100 percent permanently disabled.
Two workers whose injuries ended their careers
Hartzenberg was employed by Geelhout Plein Timbers, where she operated heavy wood saws and lifted and stacked timber. In September 2016, she fell from a truck and fractured both hips.
Although surgery allowed her to return to work, she lived with chronic pain, a permanent limp and severely restricted movement before being dismissed in 2018 because she could no longer perform manual labour.
Jonas worked for Triton Express as a heavy-duty truck driver. His job involved driving, loading cargo and securing heavy loads. After suffering a serious shoulder injury in September 2020, he underwent three operations, but never regained sufficient strength or movement to return to his work. He was dismissed on grounds of incapacity in October 2021.
Both workers lodged claims under the Compensation for Occupational Injuries and Diseases Act. The Compensation Commissioner awarded Hartzenberg just 3 percent permanent disability, while Jonas received 10 percent. Tribunals later increased those assessments to 17 percent and 13 percent, but rejected their claims that they were permanently unable to work.
The legal question before the court
The appeals centred on the meaning of permanent disablement under the Act. The respondents argued that permanent disability means an employee must be unable to perform any work whatsoever, and that both Hartzenberg and Jonas could still perform sedentary employment.
They relied heavily on impairment ratings calculated under the American Medical Association Guides and Circular Instruction 157.
Hartzenberg and Jonas argued that the tribunals had ignored the reality of their lives. Both had limited formal education, had spent their working lives in physically demanding occupations, and had no realistic prospect of moving into alternative employment.
Judge Henney rejects the mechanical approach
Writing for the court, Judge RCA Henney, with Acting Judge MF Adams in agreement, said the tribunals had fundamentally misdirected themselves. He described their assessments as a robot-like, mechanical or tick-box exercise, saying they had reduced complex human injuries to mathematical calculations instead of exercising proper judicial discretion.
Judge Henney said, “The human body cannot be divided into mathematical fractions to determine whether the person as a whole can be regarded as permanently disabled.”
He held that tribunals must consider the worker’s education, training, employment history, chronic pain, mobility and whether the injury has effectively ended that person’s ability to earn a living.
Policy cannot override legislation
A central finding was the court’s rejection of the American Medical Association Guides and Circular Instruction 157 as the primary tools for deciding permanent disability claims. Judge Henney said, “Policy determinations cannot override, amend or be in conflict with laws.”
He found that the tribunals had allowed internal departmental guidelines to replace the statutory framework created by Parliament, despite previous court decisions warning against exactly that approach.
The judge said the Compensation for Occupational Injuries and Diseases Act is social legislation designed to protect workers and must be interpreted generously in their favour.
Restoring dignity to injured workers
The court found that Hartzenberg had effectively lost the use of both hips for the only work she had ever performed, while Jonas had permanently lost the functional use of the shoulder and arm essential to his occupation as a truck driver.
Judge Henney said assigning percentage values to functioning body parts ignored the dignity and physical integrity of injured workers and failed to recognise the reality that both had lost their livelihoods.
The High Court set aside both tribunal decisions, declared Hartzenberg and Jonas 100 percent permanently disabled, and ordered the Compensation Commissioner and Director-General to pay their compensation and legal costs.
The court also ruled that amendments limiting legal costs introduced on 23 January 2026 do not apply retrospectively to cases that were already pending.
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
