Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 96 views

    CRUZ V CA

    Uploaded by

    123abc456def
    Dr. Cruz performed a hysterectomy on Lydia Umali and she later died. He was charged with reckless imprudence and negligence resulting in homicide. The courts found Dr. Cruz responsible for Umali's death, determining his actions fell below the standard of care. The Supreme Court upheld this decision, noting expert testimony is needed to establish the standard of care and whether a physician's conduct breached this standard, causing the injury. For a finding of negligence, there must be proof of a breach of duty by the physician and a causal connection between this breach and the patient's death.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    CRUZ V CA

    Uploaded by

    123abc456def
    96 views1 page
    Dr. Cruz performed a hysterectomy on Lydia Umali and she later died. He was charged with reckless imprudence and negligence resulting in homicide. The courts found Dr. Cruz responsible for Umali's death, determining his actions fell below the standard of care. The Supreme Court upheld this decision, noting expert testimony is needed to establish the standard of care and whether a physician's conduct breached this standard, causing the injury. For a finding of negligence, there must be proof of a breach of duty by the physician and a causal connection between this breach and the patient's death.

    Original Title

    14. CRUZ v CA.docx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Dr. Cruz performed a hysterectomy on Lydia Umali and she later died. He was charged with reckless imprudence and negligence resulting in homicide. The courts found Dr. Cruz responsible for Umali's death, determining his actions fell below the standard of care. The Supreme Court upheld this decision, noting expert testimony is needed to establish the standard of care and whether a physician's conduct breached this standard, causing the injury. For a finding of negligence, there must be proof of a breach of duty by the physician and a causal connection between this breach and the patient's death.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    96 views1 page

    CRUZ V CA

    Uploaded by

    123abc456def
    Dr. Cruz performed a hysterectomy on Lydia Umali and she later died. He was charged with reckless imprudence and negligence resulting in homicide. The courts found Dr. Cruz responsible for Umali's death, determining his actions fell below the standard of care. The Supreme Court upheld this decision, noting expert testimony is needed to establish the standard of care and whether a physician's conduct breached this standard, causing the injury. For a finding of negligence, there must be proof of a breach of duty by the physician and a causal connection between this breach and the patient's death.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 1

    Case Name: CRUZ v CA By: Jethro Laurente

    GR No. 122445 Topic: MEDICAL MALPRACTICE


    Date: November 18,1997
    FACTS
    Lydia Umali was examined by Dr. Cruz who found a myoma [benign tumor] in her uterus, and scheduled her for
    a hysterectomy operation [removal of uterus] on 23 Mar 1991. Rowena Umali de Ocampo accompanied her mother to the
    hospital a day before the operation, and they spent the night there. Rowena noticed that the clinic was untidy, so she tried to
    persuade her mother not to proceed with the operation. The following day, Rowena asked Dr. Cruz if the operation could be
    postponed, but Lydia told her daughter that Dr. Cruz said that the operation must go on as scheduled.
    While Lydia's relatives were waiting, Dr. Ercillo (anesthesiologist) told them to buy tagamet ampules, and Rowena's sister
    went out to buy some. An hour later, Dr. Ercillo asked them to buy blood for Lydia, so they did. A few hours later, the
    operation was finished, but later, Dr. Cruz asked the family to buy additional blood, but there was no more type A blood
    available in the blood bank. A person arrived to donate blood which was later transfused to Lydia. Rowena noticed that her
    mother was gasping for breath--apparently, the oxygen supply had run out, so the family went out to buy oxygen. Later in the
    evening, she went into shock and her blood pressure dropped. She was then transferred to another hospital so she could be
    connected to a respirator and further examined. However, this transfer was without the consent of the relatives, who only found
    out about it when an ambulance came to take Lydia to the other hospital.
    In San Pablo District Hospital, Lydia was re-operated upon by Dr. Cruz and Dr. Ercillo because blood was oozing out from her
    incision. They summoned Dr. Angeles, Ob-Gyne head of the new hospital, but when he arrived, Lydia was already
    in shock and possibly dead (BP: 0/0). Dr. Angeles told Drs. Cruz and Ercillo that there was nothing he could do. Lydia
    died while Dr. Cruz was closing her abdominal wall. Immediate cause of death is shock; disseminated intravascular coagulation
    (DIC) as antecedent cause.
    Dr. Cruz and Dr. Ercillo were charged with reckless imprudence and negligence resulting in homicide of Lydia Umali.
    The Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) found Dr. Ercillo not guilty for insufficiency of evidence against her, but held
    Dr. Cruz responsible for Umali's death. RTC and CA affirmed MTCC.

    ISSUE
    WON, the evidence on record supports the petitioner's conviction of the crime of reckless imprudence resulting in homicide, arising
    from an alleged medical malpractice.

    HELD
    Whether or not a physician has committed an "inexcusable lack of precaution" in the treatment of his patient is to be determined
    according to the standard of care observed by other members of the profession in good standing under similar circumstances bearing in
    mind the advanced state of the profession at the time of treatment or the present state of medical science. This Court stated that in
    accepting a case, a doctor in effect represents that, having the needed training and skill possessed by physicians and surgeons practicing
    in the same field, he will employ such training, care and skill in the treatment of his patients. He therefore has a duty to use at least the
    same level of care that any other reasonably competent doctor would use to treat a condition under the same circumstances. It is in this
    aspect of medical malpractice that expert testimony is essential to establish not only the standard of care of the profession but also that
    the physician's conduct in the treatment and care falls below such standard. Further, inasmuch as the causes of the injuries involved in
    malpractice actions are determinable only in the light of scientific knowledge, it has been recognized that expert testimony is usually
    necessary to support the conclusion as to causation.
    In litigations involving medical negligence, the plaintiff has the burden of establishing appellant's negligence and for a reasonable
    conclusion of negligence, there must be proof of breach of duty on the part of the surgeon as well as a causal connection of such breach
    and the resulting death of his patient.
    "In order that there may be a recovery for an injury, however, it must be shown that the 'injury for which recovery is sought must be the
    legitimate consequence of the wrong done; the connection between the negligence and the injury must be a direct and natural sequence
    of events, unbroken by intervening e efficient causes.' In other words, the negligence must be the proximate cause of the injury.
    For, 'negligence, no matter in what it consists cannot create a right of action unless it is the proximate cause of the injury
    complained of.' And 'the proximate cause of an injury is that cause, which, in natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any
    efficient intervening cause, produces the injury, and without which the result would not have occurred.'"
    Doctrine Notes
    The elements of reckless imprudence:
    'The proximate cause of an injury
    is that cause, which, in natural and 1.That the offender does or fails to do an act;
    continuous sequence, unbroken by 2.That the doing or the failure to do that act is voluntary;
    any efficient intervening cause, 3. That it be without malice;
    produces the injury, and without 4. That material damage results from the reckless imprudence; and
    which the result would not have 5. That there is inexcusable lack of precaution on the part of the offender, taking into
    occurred.' " consideration his employment or occupation, degree of intelligence, physical condition, and other
    circumstances regarding persons, time, and place.

    You might also like

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy