LEGAL MEDICINE

CASE DIGESTS

Presented to the College of Law

De La Salle University – Manila

In partial fulfillment of the requirements in

LAW30M LEGAL MEDICINE G02

Submitted to:

Dr. Marie Karen C. Jiz

Submitted by:

UNTALAN, Royce Vincent D.

11781335
Rosit v. Davao Doctors Hospital

Facts:
The petitioner patient Rosit figured in a motorcycle accident where he
fractioned his jaw. Dr. Gestuvo, who operated on Rosit, deliberately improvised the
screws he used to perform the operation on Rosit, on the assumption that the patient
could not afford the proper screws. This led to Rosit needing another operation in
Cebu, where the proper screws were to be used on him.
Rosit demanded that Dr. Gestuvo reimburse him for the cost of the operation
and the expenses he incurred in Cebu amounting to P140,000, as well as for the
P50,000 that Rosit would have to spend for the removal of the plate and screws that
Dr. Pangan installed. Dr. Gestuvo refused to pay.

Issue:
Whether or not Dr. Gestuvo should be liable for damages

Ruling:
YES. A medical negligence case is a type of claim to redress a wrong
committed by a medical professional, that has caused bodily harm to or the death of
a patient. There are four elements involved in a medical negligence case, namely:
duty, breach, injury, and proximate causation. When the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur
is availed by the plaintiff, the need for expert medical testimony is dispensed with
because the injury itself provides the proof of negligence.
The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur as an exception to the requirement of an
expert testimony in medical negligence cases may be availed of if the following
essential requisites are satisfied: (1) the accident was of a kind that does not
ordinarily occur unless someone is negligent; (2) the instrumentality or agency that
caused the injury was under the exclusive control of the person charged; and (3) the
injury suffered must not have been due to any voluntary action or contribution of the
person injured.
The first element was sufficiently established when Rosit proved that one of
the screws installed by Dr. Gestuvo struck his molar. Anent the second element for
the res ipsa loquitur doctrine application, it is sufficient that the operation which
resulted in the screw hitting Rosit's molar was, indeed, performed by Dr. Gestuvo.
No other doctor caused such fact. the third element that the injury suffered must not
have been due to any voluntary action or contribution of the person injured was
satisfied in this case. What is clear is that he suffered because one of the screws that
Dr. Gestuvo installed hit Rosit's molar.
Clearly then, the res ipsa loquitur doctrine finds application in the instant case
and no expert testimony is required to establish the negligence of defendant Dr.
Gestuvo. What is more damning for Dr. Gestuvo is his failure to inform Rosit that
such smaller screws were available in Manila, albeit at a higher price.
Spouses Bontilao v. Dr. Gerona

Facts:
Respondent Dr. Carlos Gerona treated petitioners' son, eight-year-old Allen
for a fractured right wrist. Respondent operated on Allen then sent him home. Allen
re-fractured the same. Respondent again operated and placed Allen's arm in a plaster.
He advised Allen's mother, petitioner Sherlina to bring Allen back for re- tightening
of the cast not later than June 15, 1992. Allen, however, was brought back to the
hospital only on June 22, 1992. By then, a deformity had developed in Allen's arm.
It was agreed that surgery will be conducted by respondent, with Dr. Jabagat as the
anesthesiologist.
Dr. Jabagat failed to intubate the patient after five attempts so anesthesia was
administered through a gas mask. Respondent asked Dr. Jabagat if the operation
should be postponed given the failure to intubate, but Dr. Jabagat said that it was
alright to proceed. Respondent verified that Allen was breathing properly before
proceeding with the surgery. Sherlina was informed that her son had died on the
operating table. The cause of death was asphyxia due to congestion and edema of
the epiglottis.

Issue:
Whether or not respondent is liable for damages for the patient’s death.

Ruling:
NO. Res ipsa loquitur is a rebuttable presumption or inference that the
defendant was negligent. The presumption only arises upon proof that the
instrumentality causing injury was in the defendant's exclusive control, and that the
accident was one which ordinarily does not happen in the absence of negligence.
Respondent appears to have observed the proper amount of care required
under the circumstances. Having seen that Dr. Jabagat failed in the intubation,
respondent inquired from the latter, who was the expert on the matter of
administering anesthesia, whether the surgery should be postponed considering the
failure to intubate. Petitioners failed to present substantial proof that intubation was
an indispensable prerequisite for the operation and that it would be grave error for
any surgeon to continue with the operation under such circumstances.
There was also no indication in the records that respondent saw or should have
seen that something was wrong as to prompt him to act differently than he did in this
case. Allen did not register any adverse reaction to the anesthesia. Dr. Jabagat was
also a specialist and more competent than respondent to determine whether the
patient has been properly anesthetized for the operation, all things considered.
Lastly, it appears that Allen started experiencing difficulty in breathing only after
the operation, when respondent was already about to jot down his post-operation
notes in the adjacent room.
Manila Doctors Hospital v. So Un Chua and Vicky Ty

Facts:
Respondent Chua was confined in Manila Doctors Hospital for hypertension
and diabetes. Because of her failure to pay her hospital bills after repeated demands
from the hospital, the amenities in her room were removed by the staff. The staff
refused to render her services. Through her daughter, she filed a complaint against
the hospital for damages, given her worsening condition.
The respondent’s doctor, in defending the hospital, averred that he already
recommended that the patient be discharged, but it was on the insistence of the
patient to remain in confinement. The hospital further claimed that its staff had to
remove the amenities in the patient’s room to prevent her bills from climbing further.

Issue:
Whether or not the hospital should be liable to pay damages?

Ruling:
NO. The operation of private pay hospitals and medical clinics is impressed
with public interest and imbued with a heavy social responsibility. But the hospital
is also a business, and, as a business, it has a right to institute all measures of
efficiency commensurate to the ends for which it is designed, especially to ensure
its economic viability and survival. In the institution of cost-cutting measures, the
hospital has a right to reduce the facilities and services that are deemed to be non-
essential, such that their reduction or removal would not be detrimental to the
medical condition of the patient.
Authorities, including those of common law origin, explicitly declare that a
patient cannot be detained in a hospital for non-payment of the hospital bill. If the
patient cannot pay the hospital or physician's bill, the law provides a remedy for
them to pursue, that is, by filing the necessary suit in court for the recovery of such
fee or bill. 108 If the patient is prevented from leaving the hospital for his inability
to pay the bill, any person who can act on his behalf can apply in court for the
issuance of the writ of habeas corpus.
However, the hospital may legally detain a patient against his will when he is
a detained or convicted prisoner, or when the patient is suffering from a very
contagious disease where his release will be prejudicial to public health, or when the
patient is mentally ill such that his release will endanger public safety, or in other
exigent cases as may be provided by law.
If the patient chooses to abscond or leave without the consent of the hospital
in violation of any of the conditions deemed to be reasonable under the
circumstances, the hospital may nonetheless register its protest and may choose to
pursue the legal remedies available under law, provided that the hospital may not
physically detain the patient, unless the case falls under the exceptions abovestated.