Cayao-Lasam v. Sps. Ramolete

Cayao-Lasam v. Sps.
Ramolete
Facts: Editha Ramolete (Editha) was brought to the Lorma Medical Center (LMC) due to vaginal bleeding.
Due to persistent and profuse vaginal bleeding, Dr. Cayao-Lasam advised Editha to undergo a Dilatation
and Curettage Procedure (D&C) or "raspa."
Dr. Cayao-Lasam performed the D&C procedure. Editha was discharged from the hospital the following
day.Editha was once again brought at the LMC, as she was suffering from vomiting and severe abdominal
pains. Dr. Beatriz de la Cruz, et. al., informed Editha that there was a dead fetus in the latter’s womb.
After, Editha underwent laparotomy. Editha had to undergo a procedure for hysterectomy6 and as a
result, she has no more chance to bear a child.
Editha and her husband Claro Ramolete (respondents) filed a Complaint for Gross Negligence and
Malpractice against Dr. Cayao-Lasam before the Professional Regulations Commission (PRC).
Respondents alleged that Editha’s hysterectomy was caused by petitioner’s unmitigated negligence and
professional incompetence in conducting the D&C procedure and the petitioner’s failure to remove the
fetus inside Editha’s womb. Dr. Cayao-Lasam denied the allegations of negligence and incompetence. It
was Editha who insisted that she wanted to be discharged; petitioner agreed, but she advised Editha to
return for check-up on August 5, 1994, which the latter failed to do.
The Board of Medicine (the Board) of the PRC rendered a Decision, exonerating petitioner from the
charges filed against her. Feeling aggrieved, Editha went to the PRC on appeal. The PRC rendered a
Decision reversing the findings of the Board and revoking petitioner’s authority or license to practice her
profession as a physician.
Dr.Cayao-Lasam brought the matter to the CA in a Petition for Review under Rule 43 of the Rules of
Court. The CA held that the Petition for Review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court was an improper
remedy.
Issue: Whether or not Dr. Cayao-Lasam is guilty of medical malpractice?
Ruling: No.Medical malpractice is a particular form of negligence which consists in the failure of a
physician or surgeon to apply to his practice of medicine that degree of care and skill which is ordinarily
employed by the profession generally, under similar conditions, and in like surrounding circumstances. In
order to successfully pursue such a claim, a patient must prove that the physician or surgeon either
failed to do something which a reasonably prudent physician or surgeon would not have done, and that
the failure or action caused injury to the patient. There are four elements involved in medical negligence
cases: duty, breach, injury and proximate causation.
As to this aspect of medical malpractice, the determination of the reasonable level of care and the
breach thereof, expert testimony is essential. Dr. Cayao-Lasam presented the testimony of Dr. Augusto
M. Manalo, who was clearly an expert on the subject.
From the testimony of Dr. Manalo, it is clear that the D&C procedure was conducted in accordance with
the standard practice, with the same level of care that any reasonably competent doctor would use to
treat a condition under the same circumstances, and that there was nothing irregular in the way the
petitioner dealt with Editha.
Medical malpractice, in our jurisdiction, is often brought as a civil action for damages under Article 2176
of the Civil Code. The defenses in an action for damages, provided for under Article 2179 of the Civil
Code are:
Art. 2179. When the plaintiff’s own negligence was the immediate and proximate cause of his injury, he
cannot recover damages. But if his negligence was only contributory, the immediate and proximate
cause of the injury being the defendant’s lack of due care, the plaintiff may recover damages, but the
courts shall mitigate the damages to be awarded.
Proximate cause has been defined as that which, in natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any
efficient intervening cause, produces injury, and without which the result would not have occurred.
When complainant was discharged on July 31, 1994, Dr. Cayao-Lasam advised her to return four (4) days
after the D&C. This advise was clear in complainant’s Discharge Sheet. However, complainant failed to do
so. This being the case, the chain of continuity as required in order that the doctrine of proximate cause
can be validly invoked was interrupted. Had she returned, the respondent could have examined her
thoroughly.
The immediate cause of the accident resulting in Editha’s injury was her own omission when she did not
return for a follow-up check up, in defiance of petitioner’s orders. The immediate cause of Editha’s injury
was her own act; thus, she cannot recover damages from the injury.

Cayao-Lasam v. Sps. Ramolete

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cayao-Lasam v. Sps. Ramolete

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cayao-Lasam v. Sps. Ramolete

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cayao-Lasam v. Sps.

Issue: Whether or not Dr. Cayao-Lasam is guilty of medical malpractice?

You might also like