BL ACK N WHITE

ABOUT THOUGHTS IN MY HEAD

CRUZ VS CA (GR NO. 122445 NOVEMBER 18, 1997) CATEGORIES

Select Category
Cruz vs Court of Appeals
GR No. 122445 November 18, 1997
RECENT POSTS
Facts: On March 22, 1991, prosecution witness, Rowena Umali de Ocampo, accompanied her mother to
BPI vs Sarabia (G.R. No. 175844 July
the Perpetual Help Clinic and General Hospital situated in Balagtas Street, San Pablo City, Laguna.
29, 2013)
They arrived at the said hospital at around 4:30 in the afternoon of the same day. Prior to March 22,
1991, Lydia was examined by the petitioner who found a “Myoma” in her uterus, and scheduled her for Panlilio vs RTC Branch 51 Manila
a hysterectomy operation on March 23, 1991. Rowena and her mother slept in the clinic on the evening (G.R. No. 173846 February 2, 2011)
of March 22, 1991 as the latter was to be operated on the next day at 1pm. According to Rowena, she
Philippine Geothermal vs Unocal
noticed that the clinic was untidy and the windows and the floor were very dusty prompting her to ask
(G.R. No. 190187 September 28, 2016)
the attendant fora rag to wipe the window and floor with. Prior to the operation, Rowena tried to
convince her mother to not proceed with the operation and even asked petitioner for it to be
postponed, however it still pushed through after the petitioner told Lydia that operation must be done
MAY 2016
as scheduled. During the operation, the assisting doctor of the petitioner, Dr. Ercillo went out of the
operating room and asked that tagmet ampules be bought which was followed by another instruction M T W T F S S

to buy a bag of blood. After the operation, when Lydia came out of the OR, another bag of blood was 1

requested to be bought, however, the same was not bought due to unavailability of type A from the 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

blood bank. Thereafter a person arrived to donate blood which was later transferred to Lydia. Rowena 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

then noticed her mother, who was attached to an oxygen tank, gasping for breathe apparently, the 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
oxygen tank is empty, so her husband and petitioner’s driver bought an oxygen. Later, without the 23 24 25 26 27 28 29
knowledge of Lydia’s relatives,she was decided by the doctors to be transferred to San Pablo District 30 31
Hospital were she was supposed to be re-operated. After Lydia experienced shocks, she died. « APR JUN »

Issue: Whether or not petitioner has been negligent which caused the death of Lydia Umali.
SOCIAL
Held: Yes. Whether or not a physician has committed an “inexcusable lack of precaution” in the
! ! !
treatment of his patient to be determined according to the standard of care observed by other
members of the profession in good standing under similar circumstances bearing in mind the
advanced state of the profession at the time of treatment or the present state of medical science. A
CURRENT FAVE: BOHEMIAN RHAP-
doctor in effect represents that, having the needed training and skill possessed by physicians and
SODY BY QUEEN
surgeons practicing in the same field, he will employ such training, care and skill in the treatment of
his patients. He therefore has a duty to use at least the same level of care that any other reasonably
competent doctor would use to treat a condition under the same circumstances. It is in this aspect of
medical malpractice that expert testimony is essential to establish not only the standard of care of the
profession but also that the physician’s conduct in the treatment and care falls below such standard.
Further, in as much as the causes of the injuries involved in malpractice actions are determinable only 00:00 00:00

in the light of scientific knowledge, it has been recognized that expert testimony is usually necessary
to the conclusion as to causation.

BLOG STATS
In litigations involving medical negligence, the plaintiff has the burden of establishing appellant’s
negligence and for a reasonable conclusion of negligence, there must be proof of breach of duty on 112,872 hits

the part of the surgeon as well as causal connection of such breach and the resulting death of his
patient.
ARCHIVES
In order that there may be recovery for an injury, however, it must be shown that the injury for which
Select Month
recovery is sought must be legitimate consequence of the wrong done; the connection between the
negligence and the injury must be a direct and natural reference of events, unbroken by intervening
efficient causes. In other words, the negligence must be the proximate cause of the injury. For
Advertisements
negligence, no matter what it consists, cannot create a right of action unless it is the proximate cause
of the injury complained of and the proximate cause of an injury is that cause, which in natural and
continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces the injury and without
which the result would have occurred.

The elements of reckless imprudence are:

1. That the offender does or fails to do an act;

2. That the doing or the failure to do that act is voluntary;
3. That it be without malice;
4. That material damage results from the reckless imprudence; and
5. That there is inexcusable lack of precaution on the part of the offender, taking into
consideration his employment or occupation, degree of intelligence, physical condition, and
other circumstances regarding persons, time, and place.

The possible causes of hemorrhage during an operation are: 1.) the failure of the surgeon to tie or
suture a cut blood vessel; 2.) allowing a cut blood vessel to get out of control; 3.) the subsequent
loosening of the tie or suture applied to a cut blood vessel; and 4.)and a clotting defect known as DIC.

Advertisements

Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use.
To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie Policy Close and accept
Follow

REPORT THIS AD

REPORT THIS AD REPORT THIS AD

Share this:

Tweet

Like
Be the first to like this.

Related

Cayao-Lasam vs Ramolete Li vs Soliman (GR No. Flores vs Pineda (GR No.

(GR No. 159132 December 165279 June 7, 2011) 158996 November 14, 2008)
18, 2002) In "Case Digests" In "Case Digests"
In "Case Digests"

Posted in Case Digests, Legal Medicine and tagged Blacknwhitethoughtsblog, buhaylawstudent,

casedigest, estudyanteblues, hysterectomy, law, lawstudentsph, legalmedicine, legmed, malpractice,
medicalmalpractice, medicalnegligence, negligence on May 25, 2016. Leave a comment

← PSI vs Agana (GR No. 126297 January 31, 2007) A Letter To The Future Me →

LEAVE A REPLY

Enter your comment here...

INSTAGRAM

There was an error retrieving images from Instagram. An attempt will be remade in a few minutes.

FOLLOW ME ON TWITTER

My Tweets

BLOG AT WORDPRESS.COM.