The phrase "res ipsa loquitur" is a maxim for the rule that the fact of the occurrence of an injury, taken with the surrounding circumstances, may permit an inference or raise a presumption of negligence, or make out a plaintiffs prima facie case, and present a question of fact for defendant to meet with an explanation. As applied in the case of Ramos vs. CA, The injury incurred by petitioner Erlinda Ramos does not normally happen absent any negligence in the administration of anesthesia and in the use of an endotracheal tube. As was noted by the Court in its Decision, the instruments used in the administration of anesthesia, including the endotracheal tube, were all under the exclusive control of private respondents Dr. Gutierrez and Dr. Hosaka. The court cited the case of Voss vs. Bridwell, which involved a patient who suffered brain damage due to the wrongful administration of anesthesia, and even before the scheduled mastoid operation could be performed, the Kansas Supreme Court applied the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, reasoning that the injury to the patient therein was one which does not ordinarily take place in the absence of negligence in the administration of an anesthetic, and in the use and employment of an endotracheal tube. The court went on to say that "ordinarily a person being put under anesthesia is not rendered decerebrate as a consequence of administering such anesthesia in the absence of negligence. That upon these facts and under these circumstances, a layman would be able to say, as a matter of common knowledge and observation, that the consequences of professional treatment were not as such as would ordinarily have followed if due care had been exercised. 46. What is captain of the ship doctrine? (Mendoza vs. Casumpang) Mendoza v. Casumpang, a surgical operation is the responsibility of the surgeon performing it. He must personally ascertain that the counts of instruments and materials used before the surgery and prior to sewing the patient up have been correctly done. To provide an example to the medical profession and to stress the need for constant vigilance in attending to a patients health, the award of exemplary damages in this case is in order. Hospital employee temporarily comes under the supervision and control of another while performing duties. Liability rests with the captain for the wrongful acts of thos under his control and those wherein he has extension or control. Acts of ommissions are the responsibility of the borrower not the hospital.
The operation requiring the placing of sponges in the incision is not
complete until the sponges are properly removed, and it is settled that the leaving of sponges or other foreign substances in the wound after the incision has been closed is at least prima facie negligence by the operating surgeon. To put it simply, such act is considered so inconsistent with due care as to raise an inference of negligence. There are even legions of authorities to the effect that such act is negligence per se. 47. What is the Doctrine of Informed Consent? (Li vs. Soliman) The Doctrine of Informed Consent refers to the duty imposed on a doctor to explain the risks of recommended procedures to a patient before a patient determines whether or not he or she should go forward with the procedure. There are four essential elements a plaintiff must proved in a malpractice action based upon the doctrine of informed consent: 1.) The physician had a duty to disclose material risks; 2.) He failed to disclose or inadequately disclosed those risks; 3.) As a direct and proximate result of the failure to disclose, the patient consented to treatment she otherwise would not have consented to; and 4.) Plaintiff was injured by the proposed treatment. 48. Are waivers signed by patients valid? (Nogales vs. Capitol Medical Center) No, waivers signed by patients are void. The Supreme Court stated in the case of Nogales vs. Capitol Medical Center that such release forms, being in the nature of contracts of adhesion, are construed strictly against hospitals. Besides, a blanket release in favor of hospitals "from any and all claims," which includes claims due to bad faith or gross negligence, would be contrary to public policy and thus void. 49. What is the difference between Ramos vs. CA 321 SCRA 585, 588-589 (1999) and Ramos vs. CA 380 SCRA 467 (2002)
References:
Ramos v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 124354 April 11, 2002
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/informed_consent_doctrine Li vs Spouses Soliman G.R. No. 165279 June 7, 2011
Nogales vs. Capitol Medical Center GR No. 142625 December 19,