The Health Professions Council of SA (HPSCA) has found Netcare service provider Bergman Ross & Partners (BRP) guilty of unprofessional conduct.
The complaint was brought by Thapelo Motshudi, who partnered with BRP in 2015 to provide radiology services at Netcare’s Pinehaven facility through an outfit called Motshudi Bergman Ross Radiologists (MBR).
Motshudi’s complaint to HPSCA was that BRP reneged on an oral agreement that they would own the practice on a 50:50 basis, with the latter now claiming a 74% stake in the practice because it provided banking guarantees upfront.
Motshudi partnered with BRP in 2015 to provide radiology services at Netcare’s Pinehaven facility, in Krugersdorp. The new partners won a five-year contract to provide services to Netcare.
It was Motshudi who brought the opportunity to BRP because he could not source the financial guarantee letter required prior to Netcare appointing MBR.
BRP produced the financial guarantee letter. None of the parties’ agreements were reduced to writing. After MBR secured the Netcare Pinehaven contract, the parties then collectively borrowed the money to start the practice.
Motshudi’s argument before the HPSCA was that BRP has arrogated to itself 74% of the company’s revenue and was able to process financial transactions without his involvement. He argued that that was in transgression of regulation 706 of the Health Professions Act, which states a company cannot own more than 24% of a medical practice.
Furthermore, he said this was in breach of the ethical guidelines which state “a practitioner shall not share with any person or with another practitioner who has not taken a commensurate part in the services for which such fees are charged.”
Revenue at MBR is generated by Motshudi and other radiology associates, and it is this revenue that paid off the loan the practice took when it won the Netcare contract.
The HPSCA has agreed with Motshudi that BRP was unduly benefiting from the practice. The regulator informed BRP in May that there was evidence of unprofessional conduct against it for “engaging in undesirable business practices or models in that the practitioner received fees for services not rendered.”
BRP has appealed against this finding.
“We understand the seriousness of the concerns raised regarding the HPCSA’s investigation and appreciate the opportunity to address them. BRP is fully committed to complying with the HPCSA’s regulations and upholding the highest ethical standards in our practice,” BRP said.
“We are aware of the HPCSA’s findings. We will actively challenge the findings and will take steps to overturn what is clearly a wrong decision.”
The BBBEE Commission is also investigating BRP over fronting allegations after Motshudi laid a complaint with it.
The partners have engaged in a bitter battle for control of MBR — with the dispute threatening the operation of the practice — despite a commitment to the JSE-listed private hospital group that the ownership dispute will not do so.
Business Day has it on good authority that BRP has taken steps to “interfere with and obstruct routine operational processes”, with sources sympathetic to Motshudi saying the dispute had escalated.
BRP previously told Business Day and Netcare that the partners were “working on a mutually satisfactory resolution”.
“BRP is actively engaging with Dr Motshudi’s legal team to address the dispute, and the MBR board has resolved to approach Netcare to ensure full transparency and collaboration. This aligns with our commitment to ethical business practices and fair resolution. We regret any misunderstanding and are working diligently to ensure all parties are fully informed and engaged.”
However, Motshudi said there had not been a concrete attempt from BRP’s side to settle the dispute.
“No mutually satisfactory resolution has been achieved at this juncture, nor am I aware of the steps BRP is allegedly taking to that effect. The litigation is ongoing, and not anywhere near close to resolution, and I am still awaiting the outcome of the investigation by the BBBEE Commission,” Motshudi said.
“Netcare wrote to us on April 30 2025 requesting confirmation that the dispute had been resolved, prior to commencement of negotiations to extend the lease. Other than an acknowledgment of receipt of the letter, I am not aware of any other communication with Netcare in pursuit of resolution of the dispute,” he said.
“I therefore cannot comment on any exchanges that might have ensued between Netcare and BRP, if such exist. What I can, however, confirm is that in the few days following the letter from Netcare, I wrote to BRP suggesting a way forward, and no response has been received to date.”
Motshudi has also launched legal proceedings over the ownership dispute — proceedings that BRP is challenging.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.