Professional Documents
Culture Documents
MALPRACTICE
MALPRACTICE
MEDICAL MALPRACTICE
- DUTY
- BREACH
- INJURY
- PROXIMATE CAUSE
GENERAL PRACTITIONERS V. SPECIALISTS
NEIGHBORHOOD RULE
Facts: Erlinda Ramos sought medical attention for the discomfort she
was going through by reason of a stone in her gall bladder. After the
usual medical evaluation by her doctors, she was deemed fit to undergo
a medical procedure to have the stone removed. She was scheduled to
be operated upon at the De Los Santos Medical Center and Erlinda’s
husband Rogelio asked Dr. Hosaka to look for a good anaesthesiologist
for the operation. Erlinda’s sister-in-law Herminida a college of nursing
dean was requested to stay with Erlinda all through the procedure. On
the day of the operation, Erlinda was already prepared for the operation
as early as 7.30. Dr. Hosaka was nowhere to be found within the
hospital premises so the patient, hospital staff and the anaesthesiologist
Dr. Perfecta Gutierrez had to wait until past 12 noon. When Dr. Hosaka
finally arrived, Dr. Gutierrez started intubating Erlinda. While trying to
intubate the patient, Dr. Gutierrez remarked: “ang hirap ma-intubate
nito, mali yata ang pagkakapasok. O lumalaki ang tiyan.”
After a while, Erlinda’s nail bed turned blue and she was
placed in “trendelenburg position – a position where the head
of the patient is placed in a position lower than her feet which
is an indication that there is a decrease of blood supply to the
patients brain”. Erlinda suffered brain damage due to lack of
oxygen on her brain for 4-5 minutes and she was comatose
from that day onwards. A civil case for damages was filed
against Drs. Hosaka and Gutierrez and the hospital.
ISSUE: WON THE DR. HOSAKA AND DR. GUTTIEREZ WERE
NEGLIGENT.
Ruling: Yes, they are held negligent. In the case at bar, respondent
Dra. Gutierrez admitted that she saw Erlinda for the first time on the
day of the operation itself, on 17 June 1985. Before this date, no
prior consultations with, or pre-operative evaluation of Erlinda was
done by her. Until the day of the operation, respondent Dra.
Gutierrez was unaware of the physiological make-up and needs of
Erlinda. She was likewise not properly informed of the possible
difficulties she would face during the administration of anesthesia to
Erlinda. Respondent Dra. Gutierrez’ act of seeing her patient for the
first time only an hour before the scheduled operative procedure
was, therefore, an act of exceptional negligence and professional
irresponsibility. The measures cautioning prudence and vigilance in
dealing with human lives lie at the core of the physician’s centuries-
old Hippocratic Oath. Her failure to follow this medical procedure
is, therefore, a clear indicia of her negligence.
Dr. Hosaka’s irresponsible conduct of arriving very late for
the scheduled operation of petitioner Erlinda is violative, not
only of his duty as a physician "to serve the interest of his
patients with the greatest solicitude, giving them always his
best talent and skill," but also of Article 19 of the Civil Code
which requires a person, in the performance of his duties, to act
with justice and give everyone his due.
They were working as a medical team is evident from the
fact that Dr. Hosaka was keeping an eye on the intubation of
the patient by Dr. Gutierrez, and while doing so, he observed
that the patient’s nails had become dusky and had to call Dr.
Gutierrez’s attention thereto. The Court also notes that the
counsel for Dr. Hosaka admitted that in practice, the
anesthesiologist would also have to observe the surgeon’s acts
during the surgical process and calls the attention of the
surgeon whenever necessary 39 in the course of the treatment.
LOST CHANCE RULE
Hospital may be vicariously liable for the act or omission of the physician
if:
Article 2180. Employers shall be liable for the damages caused by their
employees and household helpers acting within the scope of their
assigned tasks, even though the former are not engaged in any business
or industry.
RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR
Governing law - Republic Act No. 9173 “Philippine Nursing Act of 2002”
• MEDICATION ERROR
• BURNS OF PATIENT
• ASSESSMENT AND MONITORING ERRORS
• LEAVING FOREIGN OBJECTS
• FAILURE TO PROTECT
LEE V. PHOEBE PUTNEY MEMORIAL HOSPITAL INC. ET AL
Facts: In August 2004, Lee was experiencing extreme nausea and other
problems associated with her pregnancy and was admitted. She is diabetic
from childhood and suffers from neuropathy which means she could not
feel pain or heat. Adams, an obstetrical nurse, administered Phernegan on
Aug 23, 9:15 am via an IV to treat nausea, which is known for drowsiness
up to six hours as a side effect. 1:06 pm, administered second nausea
medication Reglan via IV that can cause drowsiness and make the patient in
stupor. Adams insisted Lee for a shower and assisted her in the shower stall
and left. Lee immediately fell asleep in the shower chair while the water
sprayed her inner thigh. An hour later nurse Adams appeared exclaiming,
“Oh, my God. I didn’t know the water could get this hot.” Lee had suffered
severe burns from the hot water.
ISSUE: WON NURSE ADAMS IS NEGLIGENT.
Dominga Roque filed an action to recover a parcel of land. On July 23, 1974
respondent Gunigundo received a copy of the order in the said case dismissing it on the
grounds of laches and prior judgment. On August 22 or the last day of the reglementary
period within which to appeal or file a motion for new trial, he filed, through an
associate, a motion for an extension of fifteen days or up to September 6 within which
to file a motion for reconsideration. The motion was granted but Gunigundo was not
able to file the motion for reconsideration.
Instead, on the last day, September 6, he sent by registered mail a motion for a second
extension of ten days. On September 16, the last day of the second extension sought by
him, he filed a motion for a third extension of forty-eight hours. The motion for
reconsideration was mailed on September 18, 1974, the last day of the third extension.
The trial court denied the second and third motions for extension on the ground that the
order of dismissal was already final. It also denied Gunigundo’s motion for
reconsideration of the orders denying his motions for extension.chanrobles law
On September 6, 1976, the spouses Dominga Roque and Jose G.
Zaplan, two of the eight plaintiffs in Civil Case No. 3826-M, filed in
this Court a joint affidavit charging Atty. Gunigundo with gross
negligence in not seasonably filing the motion for reconsideration
and in not perfecting an appeal from the trial court’s order of
dismissal.
ISSUE: WON Atty. Gunigundo is guilty of gross negligence.
RULING: No. But he is admonished to exercise care and
circumspection in attending to the affairs of his clients. A repetition
of the same irregularity will be treated with more severity.
The fact that the complainants and their six co-plaintiffs lost the
right to appeal would not necessarily mean that they were damaged.
The lower court’s order of dismissal has in its favor the presumption
of validity or correctness. Indeed, an examination of that order
discloses that the trial court painstakingly studied the motion to
dismiss and carefully rationalized its order. It found that the action
was filed more than forty years after the disputed land was registered
in the name of defendants’ predecessor-in-interest.
ACCOUNTANTS AND AUDITORS