The Road Accident Fund and serious injuries: the narrative test.

Authors

  • Magda Slabbert University of South Africa
  • Herman J Edeling University of South Africa

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.17159/1727-3781/2012/v15i2a2488

Keywords:

Road Accident Fund, serious injuries, non-pecuniary loss, permanent impairment

Abstract

The Road Accident Fund Amendment Act 19 of 2005 came into effect on 1 August 2008. This Act limits the Road Accident Fund’s liability for compensation in respect of claims for non-pecuniary loss to instances where a “serious injury” has been sustained. A medical practitioner has to determine whether or not the claimant has suffered a serious injury by undertaking an assessment prescribed in the Regulations to the Act. The practitioner has to complete a RAF 4 report. In doing so the practitioner must assess the injury in terms of the American Medical Association’s Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (6th ed). If the injury is considered to have resulted in less than 30 per cent of the whole person impairment the medical practitioner should apply the narrative test. The article focuses on the narrative test but also discusses reasons why the regulations do not fulfil the requirements of the Act; reasons why the Guides is not adequate to the task; the impact of the circumstances of an injured person on disability; problems with the existing wording of the narrative test; shortcomings on the RAf 4 form; the administrative process as well as the appeal tribunals.

 

1_Google_Scholar_12023.png    1_ScienceOpen_Log03432124.png

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Bibliography

Ahmed 2011 Risk Alert Bulletin

Ahmed R "RAF Case Law" 2011 Risk Alert Bulletin (5) 6

Rondinelli et al Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment

Rondinelli RD et al Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment 6th ed (American Medical Association Chicago 2008) (AMA Guides)

Bertelsmann 2011 Risk Alert Bulletin

Bertelsmann E "Useful Tips for MVA Practitioners" 2011 Risk Alert Bulletin (4) 6

Venter Pretoria News

Venter Z ''Greedy' lawyers punished: Six struck off the roll, seven suspended; must repay millions to RAF' Pretoria News 30 September 2011

Register of case law

Daniels v RAF Unreported case no 8853/2010, Western Cape High Court

Engelbrecht v Road Accident Fund 2007 6 SA 96 (CC)

Law Society of South Africa v Minister of Transport 2010 11 BCLR 1140 (GNP)

Law Society of South Africa v Minister of Transport 2011 1 SA 400 (CC)

Mngomezulu v RAF Unreported case no 4643/2010, Gauteng High Court

Road Accident Fund v Mdeyide 2011 1 BCLR 1 (CC)

Smit v RAF Unreported case no 47697/2009, Gauteng High Court

Register of legislation

Health Professions Act 56 of 1974

Motor Vehicle Insurance Act 29 of 1942

Road Accident Fund Act 56 of 1996

Road Accident Fund Act 56 of 1996: Road Accident Fund Regulations, 2008. Government Gazette Number 31249, Notice Number 770 of 21 July 2008

Road Accident Amendment Act 19 of 2005

Internet

http://www.raf.co.za [date of use 19 Dec 2011]

http://www.abime.org [date of use 19 Dec 2011]

Published

25-05-2017

How to Cite

Slabbert, M., & Edeling, H. J. (2017). The Road Accident Fund and serious injuries: the narrative test. Potchefstroom Electronic Law Journal, 15(2), 267–290. https://doi.org/10.17159/1727-3781/2012/v15i2a2488

Issue

Section

Articles

Similar Articles

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 > >> 

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.