CIMAS Health Group has been hit with a US$1000 001 lawsuit by Trauma Centre for misinformation after the health group claim that the centre has installed cameras on the leased property without their knowledge.
Vislink Investments trading as Trauma Centre cited Cimas as the defendant in the suit.
Trauma Centre had demanded that Cimas immediately unequivocally and unreservedly retract allegedly false and defamatory publication concerning Trauma Centre Borrowdale.
According to the summons by Trauma Centre a bulletin circulated on 14 September 2026 by CIMAS to its members under the heading “Member update on access to services at Trauma Center Borrowdale”, in which Cimas made various statements concerning Trauma Centre and their premises.
Trauma Centre which is the claimant submitted that of particular concern were the statement that reads, “Further, last week Trauma installed a surveillance camera within the leased premises without our knowledge or consent.”
The claimant said the above statement was published by CIMAS as a statement of fact and was communicated to its membership saying it was not presented as a mere suspicion, saying allegation requiring verification, or matter yet to be established.
Trauma Centre said Cimas conveyed to the recipients that our clients had in fact installed a surveillance camera within the premises occupied by CIMAS Medlabs.
The claimant said on 16 September 2026, their representatives and their Cimas legal representatives attended to the premises for a court ordered inspection specifically to establish the factual basis of the allegation concerning the alleged surveillance camera and during that inspection, CIMAS was unable to identify, point out or produce the alleged surveillance camera.
Trauma Centre also added that during the abortive court proceedings in case number HCH777/26 Cimas made serious allegations against that Trauma Centre was willfully and intentionally violating Cimas patients confidentiality.
“The inspection on the 16 September 2026 disclosed no factual basis for the serious allegation published to CIMAS members.
“It is particularly concerning that CIMAS elected to disseminate this allegation to its membership when the allegation was capable of a straightforward verification. The allegation was furthermore couched in terms suggesting serious misconduct on the part of our clients, including an alleged intrusion upon privacy rights and alleged data protection and confidentiality violations.
“Our clients accordingly regard the publication as false, unsubstantiated and seriously injurious to their reputation and standing. In addition, your clients statement under oath regarding this matter and an attempt to violate CIMAS patients confidentially has not been retracted,” they submitted.
“We further record that CIMAS has since taken steps to withdraw the High Court proceedings in which the dispute between the parties was being litigated. While our clients note the withdrawal, the withdrawal of court proceedings does not constitute a retraction of the separate publication made to CIMAS members, nor does it correct the impression created by that publication or false statements made in the founding affidavit.
“Our clients cannot be expected to accept a position whereby a serious allegation is publicly disseminated to CIMAS members, thereby placing our clients’ reputation in issue, and is then simply left standing notwithstanding the absence of any factual basis for it,” Trauma Centre submitted.
In the letter for demand Trauma had demanded that Cimas retract their statement, issue an express, unreserved and unequivocal correction in two daily publications acknowledging that the allegation concerning the alleged installation of a surveillance camera was incorrect, unsubstantiated and ought not to have been communicated to CIMAS members as a statement of fact.
They demanded that Cimas should circulate the retraction and correction to all members and recipients to whom the impugned bulletin was distributed, thereby ensuring that those persons who received the onginal allegation receive the correction.
“Our clients have suffered and continue to suffer reputational prejudice as and consequence of the publication,” Trauma Centre lawyers wrote.
The matter is pending.
