the doctor

The doctor's position is to be consulted and able to facilitate non-clinically detrimental actions to the patient regarding interposing another doctor.

“The doctor’s position is to say that I must be consulted and if I can facilitate something which is not clinically detrimental to my client’s, my patient’s current position or future position then I would have to give medical advice in that regard.”

There is no principled objection by the treating doctor to the idea of interposing another doctor, provided engagement occurs and conditions agreed upon.

“he is given a report, then he must be engaged with about his report by the Commission and if we land at not being satisfied out of our engagement with him arising from his report, then he does not have an objection to the interposition subject to whatever he says there . I understand you and the Chairperson to have formulated it as follows, that as matters stand, the doctor does not have an objection to an interposition provided there is a condition, the conditions in there met. Am I misunderstanding?”

The doctor must make a clinical assessment before relaying any matter to Mr Carrim, not just relay a phone message or question.

“the doctor himself says that whatever matter has to go to Mr Carrim through the doctor is not just simply relaying a telephone message or relaying a question, but that the doctor himself has to make a clinical assessment at that moment in time”

The doctor who provided medical evidence has voluntarily made himself available to be cross-examined under oath before the Commission, indicating willingness to defend his medical opinion.

“this doctor has made himself available to the Commission in numerous instances... he has volunteered himself to be cross-examined under oath”

The Evidence Leaders have not called the doctor to cross-examine him directly despite his volunteering, instead opting to challenge the doctor's medical views through indirect means like geolocation data and CCTV footage.

“they have not called the doctor to be cross-examined by them, and he has volunteered himself to do so... they want to put up all kinds of geolocation data and CCTV footage to impugn the doctor’s medical views through the back door”

The doctor has stated that hospital protocol permits leaving only in two circumstances, which is considered a factual allegation relevant to the Commission; this is distinct from a medical opinion.

“the doctor says the hospital protocol is that you can only leave in two circumstances. That is not a medical view he has expressed. He is alleging a fact, and it is relevant information...”

Advocate Baloyi asserts that the Evidence Leaders, as lay people, cannot impugn the medical opinions of the doctor and that such an assertion would be unfair and inaccurate.

“I think it is grossly unfair that you would formulate the position of the Evidence Leader s to be to impugn the medical opinion. They are lay people... I would be shocked if that is what they were doing.”

There has been an ongoing legal dispute about the reliability and medical validity of the doctor's evidence, with one side arguing that if the doctor were unreliable, he would not volunteer to provide evidence under oath.

“The approach of the Commission has not been to take a benign neutral position toward Mr Carrim, the deponents of Mr Carrim's affidavits, and even the treating doctor.”

The factual inaccuracies should not be used to impugn the clinical diagnosis, which remains unchallenged, and the medical response was confirmed by the treating doctor.

“Let us accept that there is a problem here and then say what is the clinical opinion in respect of that so-called problem that is on the papers in front of you and not challenged, and that is what the doctor warns the Commission, the Commissioners, from drawing an inappropriate conclusion on, that those mere facts are elevated to considerations that impugn, or not even impugn, that open to doubt the clinical diagnosis even if that is not the direct intention of disputing those facts. And what the doctor's evidence is regarding those facts is that they are what they are and they might be what they might be, but you cannot draw it based purely on those facts.”