Professional Documents
Culture Documents
PDF 17 Reyes V Sisters of Mercy Hospital Digestdocx DD
PDF 17 Reyes V Sisters of Mercy Hospital Digestdocx DD
FACTS
Leah Alesna Reyes was the wife of the deceased Jorge Reyes who was diagnosed with Typhoid by Dr. Maryln Rico at
the Mercy Community Clinic
Before seeking professional help, Jorge had been doing home medication since he was suffering from a recurring
fever. When his condition did not do any better, he was taken to the Mercy Community Clinic by his wife, herein
petitioner. (Leah Reyes)
Dr. Marlyn Rico conducted a Widal Test since she surmised that the area had been getting from 15 to 20 cases of
typhoid fever. Jorge was found positive for typhoid. Dr. Rico then indorsed him to Dr. Marvie Blanes when her shift
ended. Dr. Blanes also had the same diagnosis as Dr. Rico, that Jorge is suffering from typhoid fever.
Dr. Blanes ordered the administration of chloromycetin (drug used for typhoid cases); this was administered by nurse
Josephine Pagente.
Jorge’s condition did not improve and continued to worsen. Eventually, he died. Cause of death was “Ventricular
Arrythemia Secondary to Hyperpyrexia and typhoid fever.”
fever.”
Petitioner Reyes was prompted to file a case against Sisters of Mercy, Sister Rose Palacio, Dr. Blanes, Dr. Rico and
Nurse Pagente. The complaint was amended to implead Mercy Community Clinic and to remove r emove Nurse Pagente.
Petitioner’s Argument:
Argument:
Jorge did not simply die of typhoid fever but his death was due to wrongful administration of chloromycetin
chloromycetin..
Had respondent doctors exercised due care and diligence, they would not have recommended and rushed the
performance of the Widal Test;
T est; hastily concluded that Jorge had been suffering from typhoid
t yphoid without checking the
compatibility of the drug to the patient.
The Clinic and its directress, Sister Rose Palacio, was negligent in failing to provide adequate facilities and in
hiring negligent doctors and nurses.
These were all denied by the
t he respondents.
ISSUE
W/N Jorge’s death was due to negligence, carelessness, imprudence, and lack of skill or foresight
HELD
SUPREME COURT held that there was no liability on the part of the doctors (Dr. Rico, and Dr. Blanes), nurse Pagente, and
Mercy Community Clinic in the performance of their duties in taking care of the patient (Jorge Reyes).
ARGUMENTS
Petitioner presented the testimony of Dr. Apolinar Valcares, as expert testimony, which
testimony, which states that Jorge did not die of
typhoi
typhoidd fever
fever . Even stated that, he had not seen a patient die of typhoid fever within five days from onset of the disease.
(Dr. Valcares did not examine the brain of the patient)
Respondent presented the testimonies of Dr. Peter Gotiong and Dr. Ibarra Ponopio, as expert testimonies. Dr.
testimonies. Dr. Gotiong
stated that
that according to the patient’s history and positive Widal Test results, Jorge indeed had typhoid fever. The
gastrointestinal tract of the patient is irrelevant as the toxic effect of
of typhoid fever may be microscopic and that instead
Dr. Valcares should have examined the brain of the patient in his autopsy as typhoid fever may lead to meningitis. As
such, the autopsy of the patient was incomplete and inconclusive. Dr. Ponopio stated that Widal Test had been used in
the industry for its greater reliability that other tests, and he agreed with Dr. Gotiong.
RULING
RTC: Absolved RESPONDENTS from charges of negligence and dismissing the complaint
CA: Affirmed the ruling of RTC
SUPREME COURT:
Jorge’s death was not due to negligence, carelessness, imprudence, and lack of skill or foresight
While it is true that Jorge died a couple of hours after professional medical assistance was administered, there
was nothing extraordinary with his death.
It was established that prior to his admission, he had been suffering from recurring fevers and chills for FIVE
days. As such, this shows that he had been suffering from a serious illness and professional medical help came
too late for him.
Respondent doctors and clinic’s alleged failure to observe due care was not immediate ly apparent to a layman as
of their greatofresponsibility
observance extraordinaryto diligence.
society. Given
As itthese safeguards,
is now, thereof
the practice is no need toisexpressly
medicine require of doctors
already conditioned upon the
the
highest degree of diligence. The standard contemplated for doctors is simply the reasonable average merit among
ordinarily good physicians. That is reasonable diligence for doctors or, the reasonable skill and competence that a
physician in the same or similar locality
localit y should apply.
Doctrine Notes
Action
Action for Med
Medica
icall Malprac
Malpracttice
Is a particular form of negligence which consists in the failure of a
physician or surgeon to apply to his practice of medicine that degree of
care and skill which is ordinarily employed by the profession generally,
under similar conditions, and in like surrounding circumstances. In order
to successfully pursue such a claim, a patient must prove that the physician
or surgeon either failed to do something which a reasonably prudent
physician or surgeon would have done, or that he or she did something
that a reasonably prudent physician or surgeon would not have done, and
that the failure or action caused injury to the patient.
R es I psa L oqui
oquito
torr ; when
when may
may be dispensed
dispensed with
General Rule: (The necessity of expert testimony applies only to such
matters clearly within the domain of medical science, and not to matters
that are within the common knowledge of mankind which may be testified
to by anyone familiar with the facts) Expert medical testimony is relied
upon in malpractice suits to prove that a physician has done a negligent act
or that he has deviated from the standard medical procedure, when the
doctrine of res ipsa loquitor is
is availed by the plaintiff, the need for expert
medical testimony is dispensed with because the injury itself provides the
proof of negligence. This is because only physicians and surgeons of skill
and experience are competent to testify as to whether a patient has been
treated or operated upon with a reasonable degree of skill and care.
Court’s Duty: to find a physician negligent upon proper proof of injury to
the patient, without the aid of expert testimony, where the court from its
fund of common knowledge can determine the proper standard of
care. Where common knowledge and experience teach that a resulting
injury would not have occurred to the patient if due care had been
exercised, an inference of negligence may be drawn giving rise to an
application of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur without
without medical evidence,
which is ordinarily required to show not only what occurred but how and
why it occurred.
The patient must: prove a nexus between the particular act or omission
complained of and the injury sustained while under the custody and
management of the defendant without need to produce expert medical