This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
She was the attending physician of respondent Nora S. Go, who was admitted at the said hospital on April 19, 1992. At 1:30 a.m. of April 20, 1992, Nora gave birth to her fourth child, a baby boy. However, at around 3:30 a.m., Nora suffered profuse bleeding inside her womb due to some parts of the placenta which were not completely expelled from her womb after delivery. Consequently, Nora suffered hypovolemic shock, resulting in a drop in her blood pressure to "40" over "0." Petitioner and the assisting resident physician performed various medical procedures to stop the bleeding and to restore Nora’s blood pressure. Her blood pressure was frequently monitored wit h the use of a sphygmomanometer. While petitioner was massaging Nora’s uterus for it to contract and stop bleeding, she ordered a droplight to warm Nora and 4 her baby. Nora remained unconscious until she recovered. While in the recovery room, her husband, respondent John David Z. Go noticed a fresh gaping wound two and a half (2 ½) by three and a half (3 ½) 5 inches in the inner portion of her left arm, close to the armpit. He asked the nurses what caused the injury. He was informed it was a burn. 6 Forthwith, on April 22, 1992, John David filed a request for investigation. In response, Dr. Rainerio S. Abad, the medical director of the hospital, called petitioner and the assisting resident physician to explain what happened. Petitioner said the blood pressure cuff caused the injury. On May 7, 1992, John David brought Nora to the National Bureau of Investigation for a physical examination, which was conducted by medico-legal 7 officer Dr. Floresto Arizala, Jr. The medico-legal officer later testified that Nora’s injury appeared to be a burn and that a droplight when placed 8 near the skin for about 10 minutes could cause such burn. He dismissed the likelihood that the wound was caused by a blood pressure cuff as the 9 scar was not around the arm, but just on one side of the arm. 10 On May 22, 1992, Nora’s injury was referred to a plastic surgeon at the Dr. Jesus Delgado Memorial Hospital for skin grafting. Her wound was covered with skin sourced from her abdomen, which consequently bore a scar as well. About a year after, on April 30, 1993, scar revision had to be 11 performed at the same hospital. The surgical operation left a healed linear scar in Nora’s left arm about three inches in length, the thickest portion rising about one-fourth (1/4) of an inch from the surface of the skin. The costs of the skin grafting and the scar revision were shouldered by 12 the hospital. Unfortunately, Nora’s arm would never be the same.1a\^/phi1.net Aside from the unsightly mark, the pain in her left arm remains. When sleeping, she has to cradle her wounded arm. Her movements now are also restricted. Her children cannot play with the left side of her body as they might accidentally bump the injured arm, which aches at the slightest touch. 13 Thus, on June 21, 1993, respondent spouses filed a complaint for damages against petitioner, Dr. Abad, and the hospital. The trial court ruled in favor of respondent spouses. Petitioner, Dr. Abad, and the hospital all appealed to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed with modification the trial court decision The Hippocratic Oath mandates physicians to give primordial consideration to the well-being of their patients. If a doctor fails to live up to this precept, he is accountable for his acts. This notwithstanding, courts face a unique restraint in adjudicating medical negligence cases because physicians are not guarantors of care and, they never set out to intentionally cause injury to their patients. However, intent is immaterial in 17 negligence cases because where negligence exists and is proven, it automatically gives the injured a right to reparation for the damage caused. In cases involving medical negligence, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur allows the mere existence of an injury to justify a presumption of negligence on the part of the person who controls the instrument causing the injury, provided that the following requisites concur: 1. The accident is of a kind which ordinarily does not occur in the absence of someone’s negligence; 2. It is caused by an instrumentality within the exclusive control of the defendant or defendants; and 18 3. The possibility of contributing conduct which would make the plaintiff responsible is eliminated. Petitioner’s defense that Nora’s wound was caused not by the droplight but by the constant taking of her blood pressure, even if the latter was necessary given her condition, does not absolve her from liability. As testified to by the medico-legal officer, Dr. Arizala, Jr., the medical practice is to deflate the blood pressure cuff immediately after each use. Otherwise, the inflated band can cause injury to the patient similar to what could have happened in this case. Thus, if Nora’s wound was caused by the blood pressure cuff, then the taking of Nora’s blood pres sure must have been 20 done so negligently as to have inflicted a gaping wound on her arm, for which petitioner cannot escape liability under the "captain of the ship" doctrine. Further, petitioner’s argument that the failed plastic surgery was not intended as a cosmetic procedure, but rather as a measure to prevent complication does not help her case. It does not negate negligence on her part. Based on the foregoing, the presumption that petitioner was negligent in the exercise of her profession stands unrebutted. In this connection, the Civil Code provides: ART. 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the da mage done.… ART. 2217. Moral damages include physical suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock, social humiliation, and similar injury. Though incapable of pecuniary computation, moral damages may be recovered if they are the proximate result of the defendant’s wrongful act or omission. Hence, considering the specific circumstances in the instant case, we find no grave abuse of discretion in the assailed decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals. Further, we rule that the Court of Appeals’ award of Two Hundred Thousand Pesos ( P200,000) as moral damages in favor of 21 respondents and against petitioner is just and equitable. 12. Ilao-Oreta vs. Sps. Ronquillo Respondents, spouses Eva Marie Ronquillo (Eva Marie) and Noel Benedicto (Noel) Ronquillo (the Ronquillo spouses or the spouses), had not been blessed with a child despite several years of marriage. They thus consulted petitioner, Dr. Concepcion Ilao-Oreta (Dr. Ilao-Oreta), an obstetrician-gynecologist-consultant at the St. Luke’s MedicalCenter where she was, at the time material to the case, the chief of the Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility Section. Upon Dr. Ilao-Oreta’s advice, Eva Marie agreed to undergo a laparoscopic procedure w hereby a laparascope would be inserted through the patient’s abdominal wall to get a direct view of her internal reproductive organ in order to determine the real cause of her infertility.
Her negligence could then be partly attributed to human frailty which rules out its characterization as gross. v. Ilao-Oreta had just gotten married and  was preparing for her honeymoon. the present Petition for Review of Dr.m.  Following Eastern Shipping Lines. 1999 and. oppressive or malevolent manner.m. to be performed by Dr. Manila. and any cause of action they have would be against Dr. 1999 in. On appeal by the spouses.m.70. exemplary damages. Branch 84 of the Batangas RTC.m. and other available reliefs and remedies. of April 5. On May 18. reflect gross negligence as defined above. on April 5. Luke’s Medical Center and underwent pre-operative procedures including the administration of intravenous fluid and enema. in merely fixing the date of her appointment with respondent Eva Marie Ronquillo. this Court awards interest on the actual damages to be paid by Dr. 1999. Dr. Inc. Neither are the spouses entitled to recover exemplary damages in the absence of a showing that Dr.m. however. upon finality of this judgment. accompanied by her husband Noel. Luke’s Medical Center contended that the spouses have no cause of action against it since it performed the preoperative procedures without delay. The decision appealed from is MODIFIED in that 1) the award to respondents-spouses Noel and Eva Marie Ronquillo of actual damages is REDUCED to P2. (Underscoring in original)       thus persuades. attorney’s fees. 1999 without considering the time difference between the Philippinesand Hawaii. Ilao-Oreta The evidence then shows that Dr. Ilao-Oreta. petitioner was not in the pursuit or performance of conduct which any ordinary person may deem to probably and naturally result in  injury. at the rate of 12% per annum until satisfaction. At around 7:00 a. Her argument that Although petitioner failed to take into consideration the time difference between the Philippines and Hawaii. In her Answer. Court of Appeals. 1999for Manila. the petition is GRANTED. the St. The doctor’s act did not. They prayed for the award of actual damages including alleged loss of income of Noel while accompanying his wife to the hospital. In its Answer.The procedure was scheduled on April 5. the Ronquillo spouses filed a complaint against Dr. contrary to the finding of the Court of Appeals that  the spouses “were compelled to litigate and incur expenses to protect their interest. She thus believed in utmost good faith that she would be back in Manila in time for the scheduled conduct of the laparoscopic procedure. the Court of Appeals. to bear interest at a rate of 6% per annum from the time of the filing of the complaint on May 18. inclusive of a stop-over at the Narita Airport in Japan. she estimated that she would arrive inManila in the early morning of April 5. By Decision of March 9. Unlike in situations where the Supreme Court had found gross negligence to exist.. finding Dr. however. Dr. however. Ilao-Oreta grossly negligent. Luke’s Medical Center for breach of professional and service contract and for damages before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Batangas City. reckless. The award of moral and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees is DELETED. modified the trial court’s decision  Hence. and at 12% per annum from the finality of this judgment until its satisfaction. and 2. the costs of  litigation. the situation then did not present any clear and apparent harm or injury that even a careless person may perceive. 1999. awarded Eva Marie only actual damages in the total amount of P9. Dr. It bears noting that when she was scheduling the date of her performance of the procedure. of said date. who had traveled more than twice to the United States where she obtained a fellowship in Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility was indeed negligent when she scheduled to perform professional service at 2:00 p. Ilao-Oreta.  fraudulent. Ilao-Oreta acted in a wanton. checked in at the St. and it is of common human knowledge that excitement attends its preparations. WHEREFORE.” the records show that they did not exert enough efforts to settle the matter before going to court. Ilao-Oreta gave her side of the case as follows: She went on a honeymoon to Hawaii and was scheduled to leave Hawaii at 3:00 p. the only purpose of which was to determine the real cause of infertility and not to treat and cure a life threatening disease. Eva Marie. 1999 at 2:00 p. Ilao-Oreta. The doctor’s negligence not being gross. and arrived at 10:00 p. 2001. Aware that her trip from Hawaii to Manila would take about 12 hours. of April 4. It turned out that the doctor was on a return flight from Hawaii to. It found no adequate proof that Noel had been deprived of any job contract while attending to his wife in the hospital. and no prior notice of its cancellation was received. Ilao-Oreta did not arrive at the scheduled time for the procedure. petitioner could not have been conscious of any foreseeable danger that may occur since she actually believed that she would make it to the operation that was elective in nature. by Decision of April 21.939 and costs of suit. the spouses are not entitled to recover moral damages. She failed to consider the time difference between Hawaii and the Philippines. moral damages. Ilao-Oreta and the St. IlaoOreta at the rate of 6% per annumfrom the time of the filing of the complaint on May 18. finding that the failure of the doctor to arrive on time was not intentional. nor to award of attorney’s fees as.288. Thus. . 1999. 2006.
that has caused bodily harm to or the death 14 of a patient. If injury results to the patient as a result of this breach.allege that the RTC and CA committed a reversible error in finding them liable through negligence for the death of Teresita Pineda. not an emergency case. the physician is answerable for negligence. the physician either failed to do something which a reasonably prudent health care provider would have done. Still feeling weak. but also that the defendant's fault caused the injury. and two. and exemplary damages. Expert testimony is therefore essential since the factual issue of whether a physician or surgeon has exercised the requisite degree of skill and care in the treatment of his patient is generally a matter of expert opinion. the core issue is whether the decision to proceed with the D&C operation was an honest mistake of judgment or one amounting to negligence. A verdict in a malpractice action cannot be based on speculation or conjecture. Felicisima proceeded with the D&C operation with Dr. Teresita died in the morning of May 6. advised Teresita that she could spend her recovery period at home. or that he did something that a reasonably prudent provider would not have done . and proximate causation. the patient's uncontrolled hyperglycemia presented a far greater risk than her on-and-off vaginal bleeding. According to Dr. In this case. however. Due to complications induced by diabetes. the failure or action caused 18 injury to the patient. The management approach in this kind of patients always includes insulin therapy in combination with dextrose and potassium infusion. there was no evidence that insulin was administered on Teresita prior to or during the D&C operation. The D&C operation lasted for about 10 to 15 minutes. Mercado. Injury and Causation As previously mentioned. She experienced difficulty in breathing and was rushed to the intensive care unit. The results 9 showed that she had an enlarged uterus and myoma uteri. the critical and clinching factor in a medical negligence case is proof of the causal connection between the negligence 45 which the evidence established and the plaintiff's injuries. plus attorney's fees and costs. 46 Causation must be proven within a reasonable medical probability based upon competent expert testimony. 1987). By April 30. Flores vs. injury. moral. We do not find the petition meritorious. Sps Pineda et al Based on these preparations. Teresita's condition had worsened. namely: duty. Felicisima. Because the D&C was merely an elective procedure. Teresita opted for hospital confinement. but rather to identify and quantify comorbidity that may impact on the operative outcome. To successfully pursue a claim. Given that the patient died after the D&C. her family ( respondents) instituted an action for damages against Dr. There are four elements involved in a medical negligence case. an internist. Dr. Fredelicto (now deceased) and Dr. 1987.. Teresita's complete laboratory examination results came only on that day (April 29. notwithstanding Teresita's condition and the laboratory test results. If the preoperative evaluation uncovers significant comorbidity or evidence of poor control of an underlying disease process. Further 10 tests confirmed that she was suffering from Diabetes Mellitus Type II. 1987. The CA affirmed the 13 judgment. amounted to negligence.13. the petitioner spouses -Dr.a result highly confirmatory of diabetes. the petitioner spouses contend that a D&C operation is the proper and accepted procedure to address vaginal bleeding . breach. Felicisima only secured a telephone report of the preliminary laboratory result prior to the D&C. The presence of hyperglycemia in a surgical patient is associated with poor clinical outcomes. Teresita's urinalysis showed a three plus sign (+++) indicating that the sugar in her urine was very high. 40 This preliminary report did not include the 3+ status of sugar in the patient's urine . A physician is expected to use at least the same level of care that any other reasonably competent doctor would use under the same circumstances. Dr. the plaintiff must plead and prove not only that he had been injured and defendant has been at fault. and aggressive glycemic control 41 positively impacts on morbidity and mortality. In an elective procedure. . Insulin xxx promotes glucose uptake by the muscle and fat cells while decreasing glucose production by the liver xxx. Teresita was wheeled back to her room. On the other hand. 15 Duty refers to the standard of behavior which imposes restrictions on one's conduct. the evidence strongly suggests that the pre-operative evaluation was less than complete as the laboratory results were fully reported only on the day following the D&C operation. Fredelicto administering the general anesthesia. the burden to prove the existence of the necessary elements rests with the plaintiff. Amado Jorge.the medical problem presented to them. Insulin was only administered two days after the operation. Elements of a Medical Negligence Case A medical negligence case is a type of claim to redress a wrong committed by a medical professional. Breach of duty occurs when the physician fails to comply with these professional 16 standards. The standard in turn refers to the amount of competence associated with the proper discharge of the profession. Teresita was subjected to an ultrasound examination as a confirmatory procedure. consultation with an internist or medical specialist may be required to facilitate the work-up and direct management. By 3:40 p. this is done by administering insulin on the patient. 17 As in any civil action. Elective surgery in people with uncontrolled diabetesshould preferably be 42 43 scheduled after acceptable glycemic control has been achieved. 12 The RTC ruled in favor of Teresita's family and awarded actual. Insulin was administered on the patient. A day after the operation (or on April 29. but the medication might have 11 arrived too late. Dr. Through this petition for review on certiorari. the plaintiff must prove by preponderance of evidence that. Believing that Teresita's death resulted from the negligent handling of her medical needs. This evaluation is driven by findings on history and physical examination suggestive of organ system dysfunction…The goal is to uncover problem areas that may require further investigation or be amenable to preoperative optimization. Fredelicto Flores and Dr. She was then placed under the care of Dr. Sps. one. Felicisima Flores . The prudent move is to address the patient's hyperglycemic state immediately and promptly before any other procedure is undertaken. the physician must conduct a thorough pre-operative evaluation of the patient in order to adequately prepare her for the operation and minimize possible risks and complications. 1987). In this process. The respondents' claim for damages is predicated on their allegation that the decision of the petitioner spouses to proceed with the D&C operation. but modified the amount of damages awarded and deleted the award for attorney's fees and costs of suit.m. The internist is responsible for 38 generating a comprehensive evaluation of all medical problems during the pre-operative evaluation. The aim of pre-operative evaluation is not to screen broadly for undiagnosed disease. The net effect is to 44 lower blood glucose levels. That the D&C operation was conducted principally to diagnose the cause of the vaginal bleeding further leads us to conclude that it was merely an elective procedure. Felicisima Flores (collectively referred to as the petitioner spouses) before the RTC of Nueva Ecija. [Emphasis supplied. communication between the surgeons and the consultants is essential to define realistic goals for this optimization process and to expedite surgical 39 management.] Significantly.
Raymond S. They were accompanied by one Andrew Olavere.M. Branch 22.” Dr. Dr. a medical emergency with a significant mortality). Tatad was already working with the obstetricians who will perform surgery on Lilia Aguila.M. Mendoza explained how surgical stress can aggravate the patient's hyperglycemia: when stress occurs. Medical literature further explains that if the blood sugar has become very high.M. were busy operating on gunshot victim Charles Maluluy-on. When this happens over several days. petitioners immediately started their operation on Raymond at around 12:15 A. Complying with the request. In his testimony. Realuyo then requested the parents of Raymond to procure 500 cc of type “O” blood needed for the operation. However.M. in fact.M. while the operation was on-going. the body uses its own fat to produce energy. The trial court and the appellate court pinned the liability for Teresita's death on both the petitioner spouses and this Court finds no reason to rule otherwise. in the meantime.0mmol/l. Rosalina Tatad (Dr. laboratory test showed that her blood sugar level shot up to 14. Fredelicto's negligence is not solely the act of ordering an "on call" D&C operation when he was mainly an anaesthesiologist who had made a very cursory examination of the patient's vaginal bleeding complaint. on 25 October 1995. Realuyo)—the emergency room resident physician. Cereno reported that based on the xray result he interpreted. Upon opening of Raymond’s thoracic cavity. Tatad). Naga City a complaint for damages against Nurse Balares. after she had been referred to the internist Dr. Drs. Realuyo recommended that the patient undergo “emergency exploratory laparotomy. whether physical or emotional. Raymond was attended to by Nurse Arlene Balares (Nurse Balares) and Dr. another emergency case involving Lilia Aguila. Deogenes and Andrew Olavere returned to the BRMC with a bag containing the requested 500 cc type “O” blood. reacts by 48 secreting hormones which are counter-regulatory. the parents of Raymond—the spouses Deogenes Olavere (Deogenes) and Fe R. On 15 October 1999. was brought to the operating room. Cereno stated that considering the loss of blood suffered by Raymond. The operation ended at 1:50 A. a D&C operation is a form of physical stress.M. The death certificate of Teresita lists down the following causes of death: Immediate cause: Antecedent cause: Underlying cause: Other significant conditions contributing to death: Renal Failure . Jorge. By that time. Thus. the operation on Charles Maluluy-on was finished.The respondents contend that unnecessarily subjecting Teresita to a D&C operation without adequately preparing her. At 10:59 P. a victim of a stabbing incident.. especially the autonomic system. the trial court rendered a decision . Assisting them in the said operation was Dr. Ruel Levy Realuyo (Dr.. Realuyo. of 17 September 1995. Rather. The blood was evacuated and petitioners found a puncture at the inferior pole of the left lung. They handed over the bag of blood to Dr. 20. is a factor that can aggravate diabetes. the uncle of Raymond. Drs Ceren and Zafe vs CA At about 9:15 in the evening of 16 September 1995. between the D&C and death was the diabetic complication that could have been prevented with the observance of standard medical precautions. Deogenes and Andrew Olaver e went to the Philippine National Red Cross to secure the required blood. Dr.200 cc of blood was stocked therein. the diabetic's body. proceeded to examine Raymond and they found that the latter’s blood pressure was normal and “nothing in him was significant. Zafe and Cereno. she can have prolonged hyperglycemia which. At 1:45 A.. he did not immediately transfuse blood because he had to control the bleeders first. There. and his participation in the imprudent decision to proceed with the D&C operation despite his early suspicion and the confirmatory early laboratory results. During that time. The D&C operation and Teresita's death due to aggravated diabetic condition is therefore sufficiently established. we clarify that Dr. After extending initial medical treatment to Raymond. Dr. Blood was finally transfused on Raymond at 1:40 A. Olavere (Raymond). Zafe and Cereno. that diabetes was a risk factor that should be guarded against. the fluid inside the thoracic cavi ty of Raymond was minimal at around 200-300 cc. Dr. aggravated her hyperglycemic state and caused her untimely demise. Zafe. There being no other available anesthesiologist to assist them. the patient becomes comatose (diabetic coma). and Raymond was pronounced dead at 2:30 A. and the result is high levels of waste products (called ketones) in the blood and urine 49 (called diabetic ketoacidiosis. who was the only senior anesthesiologist on duty at BRMC that night. Claiming that there was negligence on the part of those who attended to their son. Subsequently. the hospital surgeons.Acute 47 Cardiorespiratory arrest Septicemic shock.” Dr. Dr. filed before the RTC. Just before the operation on Maluluy-on was finished. however.. could lead to death. if unchecked. At 10:30 P. Drs. Tatad also happened to be the head of Anesthesiology Department of the BRMC. Tatad finished her work with the Lilia Aguila operation. Realuyo and attending surgeons Dr. the parents of Raymond. they found that 3.M. This was apparently what happened in Teresita's case. was rushed to the emergency room of the Bicol Regional Medical Center (BRMC). Serrano—arrived at the BRMC. Cereno and Dr. it was his failure from the very start to identify and confirm. ketoacidocis Diabetes Mellitus II Stress. At 11:15 P. way above the normal blood sugar range.M. Drs. Raymond was wheeled inside the operating room. a woman who was giving birth to triplets. After Dr. Dr. despite the patient's complaints and his own suspicions. Zafe and Cereno decided to defer the operation on Raymond. Raymond suffered a cardiac arrest. Raymond’s death certificate indicated that the immediate cause of death was “hypovolemic shock” or the cessation of the functions of the organs of the body due to loss of blood.
A verdict in malpractice action cannot be based on speculation or conjecture. jointly and severally the following amounts: 1.000.WHEREFORE. Cereno explained that the reason why no blood transfusion was made on Raymond was because they did not then see the need to administer such transfusion. Despite the situation that evening i. Dr. Even the n. they are not liable for honest mistake of judgment…” . Aside from their failure to prove negligence on the part of the petitioners. It took another two hours before blood was finally transfused to Raymond at 1:40 A. Their cause stands on the mere assumption that Raymond’s life would have been saved had petitioner surgeons immediately operated on him. it cannot hold petitioners liable. It was just unfortunate that the loss of his life was not prevented.M.000. the foregoing testimonies of Dr. of 17 September 1995. P150. it was evident that petitioners exerted earnest efforts to save the life of Raymond. who was a victim of a stabbing incident. That notwithstanding. Again. The trial court ruled that there was negligence on the part of petitioners for their failure to have the blood ready for transfusion. the blood was not ready for transfusion as it was still being cross-matched. numerous patients being brought to the hospital for emergency treatment considering that it was the height of the Peñafrancia Fiesta. Cereno went unchallenged or unrebutted. Those are mere assumptions and cannot guarantee their desired result.. It must be proven that such breach of duty has a causal connection to the resulting death of the patient. Cereno. First. Before the operation. this Court hereby renders judgment: 1. Cereno was already able to discover that 3. Tatad was asking for the blood. Causation must be proven within a reasonable medical probability based upon competent expert testimony. It does not mean that when you slice the chest you will see the lesions already. especially considering that the name. It is highly unreasonable and the height of injustice if petitioners were to be sanctioned for lapses in procedure that does not fall within their duties and beyond their control. aptly explained the apparent delay in the transfusion of blood on Raymond before and during the operation. Such cannot be made basis of a decision in this case. such is a mistaken conclusion. Dennis Cereno to pay the heirs of Raymond Olavere. Dismissing the case against Dr. CA.M. Santos Zafe and Dr. P30. P50. In the case of Dr. P100. They are not insurers against mishaps or unusual consequences. 3. The Court understands the parents’ grief over their son’s death. Realuyo by Raymond’s parents. 2. cannot be attributed as the fault of the petitioners.000. Causation Not Proven In medical negligence cases. premises considered. Upon opening of his thoracic cavity. They do not even warrant a good result. it was held that “[d]octors are protected by a special law. the alleged delay in the cross-matching of the blood. it is settled that the complainant has the burden of establishing breach of duty on the part of the doctors or surgeons. immediate blood transfusion was not feasible because: A: We have to look for some other lesions. had multiple wounds when brought to the hospital. Furthermore. During the operation. Thus.00 as moral damages. Second. There was. Ruel Levy Realuyo and Arlene Balares for lack of merit. Yet. The parents of Raymond failed in this respect. and 5. when Dr.M. They are not guarantors of care. Ordering defendants Dr. it was discovered that there was gross bleeding inside the body. Again. the 500 cc of blood was given to Dr. had the blood been cross-matched immediately and had the blood been transfused immediately. 30 minutes had passed. the need for petitioners to control first what was causing the bleeding. however. At 11:45 P. 4.00 as exemplary damages.000. Cruz v. The parents of Raymond were not able to present any expert witness to dispute the course of action taken by the petitioners. Dr.e. reputation and career of petitioners are at stake.. they also failed to prove that it was petitioners’ fault that caused the injury. no proof presented that Raymond’s life would have been saved had those things been done. on the other hand. The petitioners were never shown to be responsible for such delay. Dr. however. in his unchallenged testimony. It was alleged that at 11:15 P.200 cc of blood was stocked in the thoracic cavity of Raymond due to the puncture in the latter’s left lung. 2. It was noted that Raymond. if there was any. Cost of suit.00 for the death of the victim.00 for attorney’s fees.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue listening from where you left off, or restart the preview.