MARK KEVIN A.

ARROCO
Legal Medicine
I.
A. Jurisprudence provides that medical negligence is a pre-condition to
successfully pursue a medical malpractice suit. It is an act or omission of the
physician which causes injury to the patient.
To establish medical negligence, the following elements must be present: (1)
duty; (2) breach; (3) injury; and (4) proximate causation.

B. The following are the acts/omissions that constitute medical negligence:

i. inadequacy of facilities
ii. failure to conduct pre-operation tests
iii. transfer of the patient without the knowledge of patient’s relatives
iv. lack of provisions
C. Dr. DD is civilly liable for the death of Mrs. PP.
Under the law, a doctor may be held civilly liable for medical malpractice if he
failed to perform the stard degree of care expected of him being a physician to
his patient.
In the case at bar, the failure of Dr. DD to perform the required standard degree
of care to Mrs. PP makes him civilly liable over the death of the latter. First, she
ailed to conduct pre-operation to the patient and second, the transfer of the
patient for re-operation was conducted by the said doctor without the consent of
Mrs. PP’s family.
Further, the hospital may also be held civilly liable on the basis of vicarious
liability.

II.
A. The opposition of HH is with merit.

Jurisprudence provides that a medical or hospital record of a patient cannot be

validly presented by a physician as evidence in court without the patient’s
consent as it will violate the physician-patient privilege rule under the rules of
court.

In the given case, the request of WW cannot hold water because the medical
records of HH is regarded as privileged, therefore it cannot be presented without
the latter’s consent.
MARK KEVIN A. ARROCO
Legal Medicine

Thus, the opposition of HH is with merit.

B. Under our jurisprudence, the physician-patient privileged communication rule
essentially means that a physician who gets information while professionally
attending a patient cannot in a civil case be examined without the patient’s
consent as to any facts which would blacken the latter’s reputation. This rule is
intended to encourage the patient to open up to the physician, relate to him the
history of his ailment, and give him access to his body, enabling the physician to
make a correct diagnosis of that ailment and provide the appropriate cure. Any
fear that a physician could be compelled in the future to come to court and
narrate all that had transpired between him and the patient might prompt the
latter to clam up, thus putting his own health at great risk

III.
A. Under our jurisprudence, an expert witness is one who belongs to the
profession or calling to which the subject matter of the inquiry relates and who
possesses special knowledge on questions on which he proposes to express
an opinion. There is no definite standard of determining the degree of skill or
knowledge that a witness must possess in order to testify as an expert. It is
sufficient that the following factors be present: (1) training and education; (2)
particular, first-hand familiarity with the facts of the case; and (3) presentation
of authorities or standards upon which his opinion is based.

B. YES, Dr. NN is an expert witness.

Jurisprudence provides that in order for one to be considered as an expert

witness, it is sufficient that the following factors must be present: (1) training and
education; (2) particular, first-hand familiarity with the facts of the case; and (3)
presentation of authorities or standards upon which his opinion is based.

In the case at bar, Dr. NN possessed the required qualifications of being an

expert witness, to wit: a.) Dr. NN is a licensed physician and has exhibited
knowledge and expertise on the subject matter of the inquiry b.) She is familiar
with the standards required of a physician under the said circumstance as
demonstrated by her act of administering the medical examination and finally c.)
she has the authority to present the same records as evidence because of her
experience in the field.

Thus, Dr. NN is not an expert witness.

MARK KEVIN A. ARROCO
Legal Medicine

C. The contention of RR is without merit.

Jurisprudence provides that in order for one to be considered as an expert

witness, it is sufficient that the following factors must be present: (1) training and
education; (2) particular, first-hand familiarity with the facts of the case; and (3)
presentation of authorities or standards upon which his opinion is based.

Here, the testimony of Dr. NN should be given weight considering that she
possessed the required qualification of being an expert witness. Being a novice
physician will not downgrade her credibility as an expert witness because of the
following: a.) She is a licensed and practicing physician, b.) and she exhibited
special knowledge required of shedding light on questions which he proposes to
express an opinion
Thus, the contention of RR is without merit.