|
Case outcome: Cassiem v Government Employees Medical Scheme
The Tribunal has this morning dismissed an application for interim relief by a certified registered nurse, who had earlier asked the Tribunal for the following:
- An agreement between the Government Employees Medical Scheme (GEMS) and clinical technologists -- to provide open dialysis -- should be declared anti-competitive because its sole intention is to create a cartel;
- GEMS must pay the nurse, Charlnita Cassiem, in full for claims submitted from 1 November 2018 until 5 March 2019 for dialysis services she had administered to patients; and
- GEMS must be interdicted from exercising its dominant position by compelling customers to stop making use of Cassiem’s services and placing Cassiem on indirect payment.
Charlnita Cassiem, is a certified registered nurse who runs her own business by administering dialysis to patients. She also provides comprehensive nursing care. She was previously a Unit Manager at two different dialysis clinics.
The Tribunal has dismissed her application for interim relief and reasons in this regard will be issued by the Tribunal in due course.
Background
In her founding affidavit Cassiem alleged, among others, that GEMS had concluded an agreement with the Health Practitioners Council of South Africa (HPCSA) which allowed clinical technologists to administer home dialysis to more than one patient. Cassiem concluded that GEMS and the HPCSA had created a horizontal relationship to fix prices between GEMS and clinical technologists which excluded registered nurses. She further stated that registered nurses were only allowed to treat a maximum of two patients per day, and that this violated the Competition Act. Cassiem also claimed that GEMS had used its dominance to restrict her practice by imposing indirect payment terms on it.
In its answering affidavit, GEMS said her case was fatally defective. Among others, GEMS argued that it had no dominance or market power capable of being abused; that Cassiem was using this process to extort payment from GEMS as she had quoted GEMS unjustified amounts for equipment hire charged by her to her patients; that she had not made out a case to prove her allegations against GEMS; and that her application for interim relief (for payment of claims due) cannot be ordered by the Tribunal as it did not amount to an interim relief. In addition, GEMS argued that the requirements of interim relief had not been met by Cassiem.
|
