Shortly after 78-year old sailor Gordon Webb died on the operating table at Panorama Medi-Clinic (nose118), cardiac surgeon Dr JJ de Wet Lubbe tearfully told Gordon’s widow Jenifer that he had “nicked the mammary artery”. Jenifer Webb appointed medico-legal attorneys Millers to sue for damages, but the medical insurer, Medical Protection Society, would have none of it. MPS obtained an opinion from a South African surgeon, Dr RH Kingsley, contradicting Jenifer’s US expert, Dr Robert Frater, who thought there had indeed been negligence. When the autopsy report – written by state pathologist Dr Shabbir Wadee some two years after the event – also found no negligence, Jenifer’s bid to obtain damages foundered. In nose120 we published a furious response from Millers’ partner Robert Krautkrämer, disputing the claim of negligence, and castigating Jenifer for withholding the autopsy report from him. He also laid into noseweek for not highlighting that medical negligence cases are almost impossible to prove. Jenifer felt that Krautkrämer’s letter contained a number of errors: this is an abbreviated version of her response.
Mr Krautkrämer complains that the noseweek article about my consultations with Millers Incorporated, concerning my intention to seek compensation after the accidental death of my late husband, Gordon Webb, while undergoing heart surgery, “creates unwarranted and false suspicions of covert and sinister conduct between doctors and lawyers”. If Mr Krautkrämer wishes to dispel this belief, why does he produce blatantly incorrect statements about my role in providing Millers with a copy of the controversial autopsy report?
He is obviously very agitated about this case, and is going to great lengths to make me appear responsible for the fact that Millers made no effort to obtain this report during the two years that I consulted them. In view of Mr Krautkrämer’s assertions about my actions, the true sequence of events needs to be recorded.
- In March 2008 I decided to get a second opinion on the case as no progress was being made by Millers. I consulted Dr Klatzow and gave him a copy of the autopsy report, which I had personally requested from the Senior Public Prosecutor, after being informed by the Parow police that it had been received by them in January. My copy was posted to me in February 2008. Let me make it clear that I had made every effort to get a copy of the report from Professor Shabbir Wadee who had performed the autopsy, but despite making many phone requests, and a personal visit to him in September 2007, it was not forthcoming. I emphasise that I was the only person involved in this case who made any effort to get the autopsy report from Professor Wadee, and it took over two years to be delivered.
- On 30 May 2008, I received correspondence from Millers informing me that Mr Van den Heever had left the firm and that Mr Krautkrämer was taking over my case. Early in June 2008 Mr Krautkrämer telephoned to introduce himself. I was very forthright about my dissatisfaction with Millers’s handling of my case.
- Dr Klatzow felt that it would be worthwhile for me to meet Krautkrämer, so we met at Millers offices on 13 August 2008. At this point I told him that, after over two years of effort on my part, I had received a copy of the autopsy report. He asked me to let him have a copy. I forgot to fax it to him, and was reminded by his assistant the following week: I faxed the copy on 20 August. In the intervening few days he had drafted his letter to MacRoberts, on his own initiative, and sent me a copy for approval. I really felt encouraged that at last some positive effort was being made to take my claim forward. However, after receipt of the autopsy his whole attitude changed, and he accused me of “withholding the autopsy report and, despite knowing the contents, instructing him to send the letter to MacRoberts”. I thought I was consulting Millers for their leadership and expertise in handling this case, not instructing them on how to do their business.
Mr Krautkrämer is correct: it is very difficult to get compensation for medical errors. Despite the fact that he has confused certain facts of the case, I would like to appeal to him to consider assisting, through the medium of noseweek, in a critical examination of the current “closed shop protectionism” which has existed in the medical world for many decades.
The costs of medical treatment today are very high, and when unfortunate errors occur it should not be necessary to have to prove a doctor “negligent” (in an obscenely costly court litigation – with high financial risks) in order to receive fair compensation.
All of us, whatever our professional skills, make errors of judgment from time to time. The active support from a lawyer of Mr Krautkrämer’s calibre would be a great asset in challenging yet another exclusive cartel, one controlled primarily by the indemnity insurers (and tolerated by the doctors), which has flourished at the expense of the very people who pay the medical profession for their services.
Those disabled, or who lose their means of support, through a slip on the part of a doctor should not be left without assistance. Other professions and industries ensure that the client is compensated for service errors – why not the medical profession? Let’s face it, today’s average private practitioner is as commercially minded as most business people. If the doctors themselves are paying high rates for indemnity insurance to protect themselves, how is it that the medical insurers are so effectively able to forestall payouts for deserving cases?
Furthermore, why is the claimant forbidden to meet and discuss the situation with either the doctor concerned or his insurance agent? It all smacks of collusion to me.
Jenifer Webb | 
about us