A D V P R E M H I D

The Commission's case challenges the medical evidence on the basis that Mr Carrim was at a shopping complex in Durbanville, which contradicts his clinical diagnosis.

“the very attitude of the Commission through the Evidence Leaders is not to say that, oh, this is a benign piece of evidence, the CCTV footage... The entire thesis underlying their opposition to the postponement and why they want to tied down my client to a specific date is to say the fact of these movements, the fact of these payments, the fact that he is not in the hospital all the time bring into doubt the medical diagnosis that the clinician has given him.”

The medical evidence from Mr Carrim's treating clinician is undisputed on the clinical diagnosis and clinical observations made.

“the medical evidence in front of you from Mr Carrim's treating clinician is undisputed on the clinical diagnosis and the clinical observation that Mr Carrim's treating medical professional makes.”

The Commission's expert report does not dispute the clinical observation of Mr Carrim's treating doctor, but raises two collateral issues, including inappropriate suggestion that Mr Carrim's doctor should perform an Independent Medical Examination (IME).

“There is an expert report, ... put up by the Commission, which generously does not actually dispute that clinical observation. What it does is it speaks to two collateral issues. ... he talks about it being inappropriate for Mr Carrim's physician... to perform what is called an independent medical exam on Mr Carrim... that IME cannot be used as a basis to impugn Mr Carrim's medical doctor's clinical observations because Mr Carrim's medical doctor never performed an IME.”

Mr Carrim's treating doctor did not perform an IME; an IME is a forensic medical examination done independently from the patient, which is different from the treating doctor's clinical role.

“Mr Carrim's medical doctor never performed an IME. An IME is an entirely separate form of medical examination that is performed in a forensic context... a degree of separation or independence between the medical examiner and the ultimate patient.”

The Commission's expert argues that Mr Carrim's treating doctor is not independent enough to perform an IME, which leads to undermining the clinical evidence presented by that doctor.

“the Commission's expert... says that the treatment Mr Carrim is receiving can never be an IME exercise because he is not, inverted commas, independent enough of Mr Carrim... seems to undermine the clinical evidence in front of you from that doctor is to say he is not entitled to perform an IME and what he is given you is not an IME.”

The medical report highlights the central role of Mr Carrim's treating doctors before any directive can be given for a medical examination by another.

“that report itself emphasizes the role to be played by Mr Carrim's own treating doctors before any such directive can be given that he is subject to the medical examination of another...”