Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 150 views

    Garcia-Rueda v. Office of The City Prosecutor - G.R. No. 118141 - Sept 5, 1997 - DIGEST

    Uploaded by

    Aaron Ariston
    This case involves a medical malpractice claim filed by Leonila Garcia-Rueda against Dr. Antonio and Dr. Reyes for the death of her husband Florencio after undergoing surgery. The NBI autopsy found that Florencio's death was due to lack of care by the anesthesiologist Dr. Reyes. The court ruled that Dr. Antonio and Dr. Reyes were guilty of medical negligence by breaching their duty of care. A doctor-patient relationship creates a duty for doctors to provide the same standard of care as a reasonably competent doctor. The court found evidence that Dr. Reyes negligently departed from the medical standard in administering anesthesia and that this was the proximate cause of Floren

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Garcia-Rueda v. Office of The City Prosecutor - G.R. No. 118141 - Sept 5, 1997 - DIGEST

    Uploaded by

    Aaron Ariston
    150 views2 pages
    This case involves a medical malpractice claim filed by Leonila Garcia-Rueda against Dr. Antonio and Dr. Reyes for the death of her husband Florencio after undergoing surgery. The NBI autopsy found that Florencio's death was due to lack of care by the anesthesiologist Dr. Reyes. The court ruled that Dr. Antonio and Dr. Reyes were guilty of medical negligence by breaching their duty of care. A doctor-patient relationship creates a duty for doctors to provide the same standard of care as a reasonably competent doctor. The court found evidence that Dr. Reyes negligently departed from the medical standard in administering anesthesia and that this was the proximate cause of Floren

    Original Description:

    Leg Med Case

    Original Title

    (003) Garcia-Rueda v. Office of the City Prosecutor - G.R. No. 118141 - Sept 5, 1997 - DIGEST

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involves a medical malpractice claim filed by Leonila Garcia-Rueda against Dr. Antonio and Dr. Reyes for the death of her husband Florencio after undergoing surgery. The NBI autopsy found that Florencio's death was due to lack of care by the anesthesiologist Dr. Reyes. The court ruled that Dr. Antonio and Dr. Reyes were guilty of medical negligence by breaching their duty of care. A doctor-patient relationship creates a duty for doctors to provide the same standard of care as a reasonably competent doctor. The court found evidence that Dr. Reyes negligently departed from the medical standard in administering anesthesia and that this was the proximate cause of Floren

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    150 views2 pages

    Garcia-Rueda v. Office of The City Prosecutor - G.R. No. 118141 - Sept 5, 1997 - DIGEST

    Uploaded by

    Aaron Ariston
    This case involves a medical malpractice claim filed by Leonila Garcia-Rueda against Dr. Antonio and Dr. Reyes for the death of her husband Florencio after undergoing surgery. The NBI autopsy found that Florencio's death was due to lack of care by the anesthesiologist Dr. Reyes. The court ruled that Dr. Antonio and Dr. Reyes were guilty of medical negligence by breaching their duty of care. A doctor-patient relationship creates a duty for doctors to provide the same standard of care as a reasonably competent doctor. The court found evidence that Dr. Reyes negligently departed from the medical standard in administering anesthesia and that this was the proximate cause of Floren

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 2

    Garcia-Rueda v.

    Office of the City Prosecutor


    G.R. No. 118141
    Sept 5, 1997

    ROMERO, J.:

    STATEMENT OF FACTS:
    Florencio Rueda (Florencio), husband of Leonila Garcia-Rueda (Leonila), underwent a
    surgical operation at the UST hospital for the removal of a stone blocking his ureter. He was
    attended by the surgeon Dr. Domingo Antonio, Jr. (Antonio) and the anesthesiologist Dr. Erlinda
    Balabat-Reyes (Reyes). 6hrs after the surgery Florencio died due to complications. Not satisfied
    with the findings of the hospital, Leonila requested the NBI to conduct an autopsy. The NBI found
    out that that Florecios death was due to lack of care by anesthesiologist, and thus recommended
    that Dr. Antonio and Dr. Balabat be charged for homicide through reckless imprudence before
    the Office of the City Prosecutor.
    During the preliminary investigation, there were numerous prosecutors who handled
    the case and passed around the case for various reasons, and thus Leonoila was aggrieved.

    STATEMENTS OF THE CASE:


    Leonila filed graft charges against prosecutor Guerrero, Macaraeg, and Arizala for
    manifestly in favor of Dr. Reyes before the office of the ombudsman, however the ombudsman
    dismissed the complaint for lack of evidence.

    ISSUE:
    Whether Dr. Antonio and Dr. Reyes are guilty of medical malpractice/negligence

    RULING:
    YES, medical negligence, is that type of claim which a victim has available to him or her
    to redress a wrong committed by a medical professional which has caused bodily harm.

    In order to successfully pursue such a claim, a patient must prove that a health care
    provider, in most cases a physician, either failed to do something which a reasonably prudent
    health care provider would have done, or that he or she did something that a reasonably prudent
    provider would not have done; and that that failure or action caused injury to the patient.

    Hence, there are four elements involved in medical negligence cases: duty, breach, injury
    and proximate causation.

    Evidently, when the victim employed the services of Dr. Antonio and Dr. Reyes, a
    physician-patient relationship was created. In accepting the case, Dr. Antonio and Dr. Reyes in
    effect represented that, having the needed training and skill possessed by physicians and
    surgeons practicing in the same field, they will employ such training, care and skill in the
    treatment of their patients. They have 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. The
    breach of these professional duties of skill and care, or their improper performance, by a
    physician surgeon whereby the patient is injured in body or in health, constitutes actionable
    malpractice. Consequently, in the event that any injury results to the patient from want of due
    care or skill during the operation, the surgeons may be held answerable in damages for
    negligence.

    Moreover, in malpractice or negligence cases involving the administration of anesthesia,


    the necessity of expert testimony and the availability of the charge of res ipsa loquitur to the
    plaintiff, have been applied in actions against anesthesiologists to hold the defendant liable for
    the death or injury of a patient under excessive or improper anesthesia. Essentially, it requires
    two-pronged evidence: evidence as to the recognized standards of the medical community in
    the particular kind of case, and a showing that the physician in question negligently departed
    from this standard in his treatment.
    Another element in medical negligence cases is causation which is divided into two
    inquiries: whether the doctors actions in fact caused the harm to the patient and whether these
    were the proximate cause of the patients injury. Indeed here, a causal connection is discernible
    from the occurrence of the victims death after the negligent act of the anesthesiologist in
    administering the anesthesia, a fact which, if confirmed, should warrant the filing of the
    appropriate criminal case. To be sure, the allegation of negligence is not entirely
    baseless. Moreover, the NBI deduced that the attending surgeons did not conduct the necessary
    interview of the patient prior to the operation. It appears that the cause of the death of the
    victim could have been averted had the proper drug been applied to cope with the symptoms
    of malignant hyperthermia. Also, we cannot ignore the fact that an antidote was readily
    available to counteract whatever deleterious effect the anesthesia might produce. Why these
    precautionary measures were disregarded must be sufficiently explained.

    You might also like