In my first blog I told you that I am a Goldfield's boitjie who grew up in the Goldfields. 

My dad, a miner now retired worked on one particular mine in the Goldfields for 39 years and the Mine for most of the time was good to my father and his family, that until of coarse he basically became deaf after years of noise exposure, where after he was dismissed for incapacity.

After receiving his report from the mine's doctor indicating that he suffers from noise induced hearing loss, he assisted by myself, appeal the decision to the medical inspector of mines but his appeal was rejected once again indicating that his hearing has deteriorated to such an extent that he cannot for safety reasons be allowed to continue his services in the position held by him, citing noise induced hearing loss as the cause.

The mine did not want to accommodate him in another position with less noise and as such he was then dismissed, 4 years before he would have retired.

Because of the disability caused by the exposure to excessive noise resulting in his dismissal, I assisted my father to claim compensation from Rand Mutual Insurance. We provided RMA with two expert reports of ENT specialist confirming that the hearing loss suffered by my father was as a result of his employment and due to constant exposure to excessive noise in the mine but still his claim was rejected by RMA. 

We once again objected to the rejection of the claim and a tribunal hearing was scheduled to determine whether there were any ground for compensation.

At this hearing a panel of experts were chosen by the RMA to adjudicate over the matter.

At the Tribunal hearing, which George Kahn of Richard Spoor Attorneys, assisted us with, a grave injustice took place which is more fully dealt with in the reported judgement of Knoetze v Rand Mutual Assurance held in the Gauteng High Court, which I will make available.

The Court found that the Tribunal misinterpreted and misapplied s 65 and s 66 of COIDA and unduly placed the onus on the employee to proof that his injury did not emanate from his employment despite the presumption indicated in s 66.

The appeal to the High Court succeeded and it was ordered that the RMA must compensate my father.

Luckily George Kahn and I could assist my father to rectify this injustice, but most of the mine employees does not have the funds or know how to take on a big corporation such as RMA, resulting in various mine worker being left with a disability without compensation.