Borromeo Vs Family Care

Carlos Borromeo v Family Care Hospital Inc. (G.R. No.
191018)
_____________________________________________________________________________________
FACTS______________________________________________________________________________
On July 13, 1999, the Borromeo brought his wife to the Family Care Hospital because she had
been complaining of acute pain at the lower stomach area and fever for two days. She was admitted at the
hospital and placed under the care of Dr. Inso.
Dr. Inso suspected that Lilian might be suffering from acute appendicitis so he ordered Lilian’s
confinement for testing and evaluation. However, the tests were not conclusive enough to confirm that she
had appendicitis. Lilian abruptly developed an acute surgical abdomen.________________________
_____________________________________
On July 15, 1999, Dr. Inso decided to conduct an exploratory laparotomy on Lilian. During the
operation, Dr. Inso confirmed that Lilian was suffering from acute appendicitis. The operation was
successful. _______________________________
Howver, because her blood pressure was low, Dr Inso ordered the infusion of more intravenous (IV) fluids
but the condition of Lilian did not get well. A blood transfusion was requested but Lilian did not respond
to the blood transfusion and her condition continued to deteriorate.________
____________________________________________________
At this point, Dr. Inso suspected that Lilian had Disseminated Intravascular Coagulation (DIC), a
blood disorder characterized by bleeding in many parts of her body caused by the consumption or the loss
of the clotting factors in the blood. Dr. Inso and the nurses performed CPR on Lilian. Dr. Inso also
informed her family that there may be a need to re-operate on her in the ICU. Unfortunately, Family Care
did not have an ICU so Lilian was transferred to the Muntinlupa Medical Center (MMC) which had an
available bed. Upon reaching the MMC, a medical team was on hand to resuscitate. Unfortunately, Lilian
passed away despite efforts to resuscitate her.
According to the autopsy report, Dr. Reyes concluded that the cause of Lilian’s death was haemorrhage
due to bleeding petechial blood vessels: internal bleeding. He further concluded that the internal bleeding
was caused by the 0.5 x 0.5 cm opening in the repair site. He opined that the bleeding could have been
avoided if the site was repaired with double suturing instead of the single continuous suture repair that he
found. Based on the autopsy, the petitioner filed a complaint for damages against Family Care and against
Dr. Inso for medical negligence. RTC ruled in favor of Borromeo but CA reversed the
ruling.________________________________________________
Issue: Whether or not respondents are guilty of medical negligence (NO) ______________
Ruling: A medical professional has the duty to observe the standard of care and exercise the degree of
skill, knowledge, and training ordinarily expected of other similarly trained medical professionals acting
under the same circumstances. A breach of the accepted standard of care constitutes negligence or
malpractice and renders the defendant liable for the resulting injury to his patient.
____________________________
The standard is based on the norm observed by other reasonably competent members of the profession
practicing the same field of medicine. Because medical malpractice cases are often highly technical, expert
testimony is usually essential to establish: (1) the standard of care that the defendant was bound to observe
under the circumstances; (2) that the defendant’s conduct fell below the acceptable standard; and (3) that
the defendant’s failure to observe the industry standard caused injury to his patient.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
The expert witness must be a similarly trained and experienced physician. Thus, a pulmonologist is not
qualified to testify as to the standard of care required of an anesthesiologist and an autopsy expert is not
qualified to testify as a specialist in infectious
diseases.__________________________________________________________________
xxxx
Dr. Reyes is not an expert witness who could prove Dr. Inso’s alleged negligence. His testimony could not
have established the standard of care that Dr. Inso was expected to observe nor assessed Dr. Inso’s failure
to observe this standard. His testimony cannot be relied upon to determine if Dr. Inso committed errors
during the operation, the severity of these errors, their impact on Lilian’s probability of survival, and the
existence of other diseases/condition.
xxxx
The petitioner cannot invoke the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur to shift the burden of evidence onto the
respondent. Res ipsa loquitur, literally, “the thing speaks for itself;” is a rule of evidence that presumes
negligence from the very nature of the accident itself using common human knowledge or experience.
The application of this rule requires: (1) that the accident was of a kind which does not ordinarily occur
unless someone is negligent; (2) that the instrumentality or agency which caused the injury was under the
exclusive control of the person charged with negligence; and (3) that the injury suffered must not have
been due to any voluntary action or contribution from the injured person. The concurrence of these
elements creates a presumption of negligence that, if unrebutted, overcomes the plaintiff’s burden of proof.
xxxx
The rule is not applicable in cases such as the present one where the defendant’s alleged failure to observe
due care is not immediately apparent to a layman. These instances require expert opinion to establish the
culpability of the defendant doctor. It is also not applicable to cases where the actual cause of the injury
had been identified or established. While this Court sympathizes with the petitioner’s loss, the petitioner
failed to present sufficient convincing evidence to establish: (1) the standard of care expected of the
respondent and (2) the fact that Dr. Inso fell short of this expected standard. Considering further that the
respondents established that the cause of Lilian’s uncontrollable bleeding (and, ultimately, her death) was a
medical disorder – Disseminated Intravascular Coagulation – we find no reversible errors in the CA’s
dismissal of the complaint on appeal.

Borromeo Vs Family Care

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Borromeo Vs Family Care

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Borromeo Vs Family Care

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Carlos Borromeo v Family Care Hospital Inc. (G.R. No.

You might also like