In March 2012 there was significant furore in the media when Ronald Bobroff challenged and exposed Discovery’s non-compliance with the Medical Schemes Act and its failure to disclose to prospective members and admitted members of the scheme, that road accident generated medical costs and care are excluded in terms of Discovery’s policy and rules. This is never disclosed to the member until the member of his or her dependent sustains injuries in a road accident and is then confronted with a demand to immediately sign an unlawful undertaking to claim from the RAF at the member’s own risk and cost and which undertaking contains the threat to immediately terminate care to the victim and to reclaim the cost of care already rendered. CLICK HERE to read the unlawful undertaking document.
The latest updates regarding this issue will be published here as they develop and website viewers are encouraged to enquire for anyone who they know is a member of Discovery medical aid whether such person was ever informed of these terms and conditions and whether such person ever received a detailed summary of Discovery’s Rules when they first became a member of Discovery. This does not refer to the annual benefits booklet..
Picture of Discovery's Katz and Lyndsey Steele(pink) of the Road Accident Fund in court together.
Mrs Steyn whose son’s personal injury claim was dealt with by RBP Director, Steven Bezuidenhout, was encouraged by attorneys Norman Berger and Anthony Millar to sue RBP Inc. The action brought by Attorney Millar on behalf of Mrs Steyn against Ronald Bobroff & Partners, was dismissed in the Johannesburg High Court as being without merit. Mrs Steyn was thereafter apparently persuaded to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal, and again the baseless claim against Ronald Bobroff & Partners was dismissed with costs. Mrs Steyn’s liability to RBP’s insurers will likely exceed half a million rand, in addition to which she will be responsible for the fees of Messrs Berger and Millar as also the fees due to RBP Inc.
The Supreme court judgement - Steyn NO v Ronald Bobroff & Partners - CLICK HERE TO READ
Discovery’s in house attorney -Jeffery Katz (in pink shirt) lunching with discovery proxies, attorneys Norman Berger (elderly man) and Anthony Millar.
BERGER AND MILLAR REWARDED BY DISCOVERY FOR THEIR ASSISTANCE IN DISCOVERY'S VENDETTA AGAINST RBP
Berger and Millar were recently placed on Discovery’s so-called panel of attorneys. Such appointment leads to a steady flow of contact details of Discovery members who sustain injury in road accidents, being made available to “panel” members. The scheme is understood to be aimed at ensuring that panel members, in return for the steady flow of work solicited from Discovery members will ensure, probably via a contractual basis with Discovery obliging them to do so, that Discovery members whose claims they handle will be be "persuaded" to agree to reimbursing Discovery all medical costs expended by Discovery as a result of the road accident sustained injuries in road accidents.
See paragraph 7 in both letters from Messrs Berger & Millar addressed to a Discovery member and where the agenda to pur Discovery's interests first, are made clear i.e. "to assist both Discovery and its members" and again in paragraph 7 third bullet in the second letter where it is stated "Past medical expenses (those disbursed by Discovery would be refunded bo Discovery.
- and any that you may have paid yourself will be refunded to youIt is understood that Discovery panel members receive a secret commission of between 10 -15% of the amounts which they "persuade" their Discovery client to reimburse to Discovery. This taken together with a reluctance to jeopardize the steady flow of lucrative claims via Discovery renders it highly unlikely that a Discovery panel member will fulfil the ethical duty of an attorney to place the client's interest first in all issues. It seems clear that panel members, including Messrs Berger and Millar would be disinclined to advise their Discovery sourced clients to challenge
Discovery’s usual, notorious and unlawful undertaking, which members are forced to sign under unlawful threat by Discovery to immediately terminate medical care to the member or the member’s dependent and to reclaim the cost of medical care already rendered, is enforceable;
Discovery’s rules in respect of medical cost reimbursements are contrary to various provisions of the consumer protection act;
Discovery’s extensive and serial non-compliance with crucial provisions of the medical schemes act, do not absolve members from having to reimburse Discovery medical costs recovered.
Berger and Millar currently face numerous serious allegations, before the law society, of touting poor black unsophisticated road accident victims from Natalspruit hospital.
Affidavits by former clients of Messrs Berger and Millar alleging that they were touted from Natalspruit hospital by Mr Jabu Goxkwa to those attorneys have been lodged with the Law Society of the Northern Provinces.
An affidavit by Mr Goxkwa stating that he was employed, as a tout, by such attorneys for 6 years has also been lodged with the law society.
Whilst marketing and advertising is permitted by the rules and guidelines of the law society, this type of out and out touting is prohibited by the rules of the law society, and attorneys who are found guilty of such conduct, are in terms of numerous decisions of the high court and of the supreme court of appeal, invariably struck off the roll of attorneys.
Katz is facing serious allegations before the law society ,of attempted bribery of RBP clients, so as to persuade them to assist Katz in his /Discovery’s vendetta against RBP, as revenge for RBP exposing Discovery’s long standing and extensive non-compliance with the Medical Schemes Act and the way in which it abuses members who sustain injury in road accidents.