Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 51 views

    Case Digest Legal Medicine Lucas Vs Tuano

    Uploaded by

    Alia Arnz-Dragon
    The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Dr. Tuaño in a medical malpractice case brought by Peter Lucas and his family. To prevail in a medical malpractice case, the plaintiff must prove: (1) the physician failed to exercise the proper skill, care and learning; (2) this failure caused damages to the patient; and (3) the standard of care was not met. Here, the plaintiffs did not provide sufficient evidence of the standard of care required or that Dr. Tuaño breached his duty of care, which led to Peter Lucas' injuries. Expert medical testimony is required to prove the standard of care and negligence in a medical malpractice case.

    Copyright:

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

    Case Digest Legal Medicine Lucas Vs Tuano

    Uploaded by

    Alia Arnz-Dragon
    51 views4 pages
    The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Dr. Tuaño in a medical malpractice case brought by Peter Lucas and his family. To prevail in a medical malpractice case, the plaintiff must prove: (1) the physician failed to exercise the proper skill, care and learning; (2) this failure caused damages to the patient; and (3) the standard of care was not met. Here, the plaintiffs did not provide sufficient evidence of the standard of care required or that Dr. Tuaño breached his duty of care, which led to Peter Lucas' injuries. Expert medical testimony is required to prove the standard of care and negligence in a medical malpractice case.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    case-digest-legal-medicine-lucas-vs-tuano

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Dr. Tuaño in a medical malpractice case brought by Peter Lucas and his family. To prevail in a medical malpractice case, the plaintiff must prove: (1) the physician failed to exercise the proper skill, care and learning; (2) this failure caused damages to the patient; and (3) the standard of care was not met. Here, the plaintiffs did not provide sufficient evidence of the standard of care required or that Dr. Tuaño breached his duty of care, which led to Peter Lucas' injuries. Expert medical testimony is required to prove the standard of care and negligence in a medical malpractice case.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    51 views4 pages

    Case Digest Legal Medicine Lucas Vs Tuano

    Uploaded by

    Alia Arnz-Dragon
    The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Dr. Tuaño in a medical malpractice case brought by Peter Lucas and his family. To prevail in a medical malpractice case, the plaintiff must prove: (1) the physician failed to exercise the proper skill, care and learning; (2) this failure caused damages to the patient; and (3) the standard of care was not met. Here, the plaintiffs did not provide sufficient evidence of the standard of care required or that Dr. Tuaño breached his duty of care, which led to Peter Lucas' injuries. Expert medical testimony is required to prove the standard of care and negligence in a medical malpractice case.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 4

    PETERPAULPATRICKLUCAS,etal.vs.DR.PROSPEROMA.

    C.TUAÑO
    G.R.NO.178763 21April20 9
    Chico-Nazario,J.

    DOCTRINES:

    Inamedicalnegligencesuit,thepatientorhisheir
    s,inordertoprevail,isrequiredtoproveby
    preponderanceofevidencethatthephysicianfaile
    dtoexercisethatdegre ofskil,care,and
    learningpossessedbyotherpersonsinthesameprof
    ession;andthatasaproximateresultof
    suchfailure,thepatientorhisheirssuffereddamag
    es.

    Thereisbreachofdutyofcare,skilanddiligence,o
    rtheimproperperformanceofsuchduty,by
    theatendingphysicianwhenthepatientisinjuredi
    nbodyorinhealthconstitutestheactionable
    malpractice.

    FACTS:

    Hereinpetitioner,PeterLucas,firstconsultedres
    pondent,Dr.Tuaño,onacomplaintofsoreness
    andrednessonhisrighteye.Therespondent,afteras
    eriesofexaminations,foundthatthe
    formerwassufferingfrom
    conjunctivitisor“soreeyes”andprescribedtheus
    eoftheSpersacet-
    C. However,afterthe petitioner’scondition se
    med to have worsened,he soughtforthe
    respondent’s second finding wherein the latersaid
    thathis condition had progressed to
    EpidemicKeratoConjunctivitis(EKC),aviralinf
    ection.Therespondenthenprescribedtheuse
    ofMaxitrol,asteroid-
    basedeyedrop.Thepetitioner’sconditionworsene
    dovertime,yethe
    obedientlycompliedwithaltheprescriptionsando
    rdersoftherespondent.

    Fourmonthslaterandafterthepetitionersufferedf
    rom significantswelingofhisrighteyebal,
    headaches,nauseaandblindnessonthisrighteye,he
    soughtfortheopinionofanotherdoctor,
    Dr.Aquino.Dr.Aquinofoundthathepetitionerhadb
    e nsufferingfrom glaucomaandne ded
    toundergolasersurgery,lesthemightsufferfrom
    totalblindness.

    Afterreadingtheliteratureontheuseofthemedici
    neMaxitrol,Fatima,oneofthepetitioners
    hereinandPeterLucas’wife,readthatoneoftheadv
    erseeffectsofprolongeduseofsteroid-
    basedeyedropscouldpossiblybeglaucoma.Peter,F
    atima,andtheirtwochildreninstituteda
    civilcasefordamagesagainsthereinrespondentfo
    rmedicalmalpractice.

    ISSUE:
    WhetherornotthepetitionersamplyprovedthatDr.
    Tuañofailedtoexercisediligenceinthe
    performanceofhisdutyaspetitionerPeterLucas’p
    hysician.

    RULING:

    No.Absenta definitive standard ofcare


    ordiligence required ofDr.Tuaño underthe
    circumstances,theCourthasnoyardstickuponwhic
    htoevaluatetheatendantfactsofthe
    caseathandtobeabletostatewithconfidencethathe
    actscomplainedof,inde d,constituted
    negligenceand,thus,shouldbethesubjectofpecuni
    aryreparation.

    Inmedicalnegligencecases,alsocaledmedicalmal
    practicesuits,thereexistaphysician-
    patientrelationshipbetwe
    nthedoctorandthevictim.Butjustlikeanyotherpr
    oce dingfor
    damages,fouressential(4)elementsi.e.,
    (1)duty;(2)breach;(3)injury;and(4)proximate
    causation,mustbeestablishedbytheplaintiff/s.A
    lthefour(4)elementsmustco-existinorder
    tofindthephysiciannegligentand,thus,liableford
    amages.

    Asthephysicianhasthedutytouseatleastthesame
    levelofcareasthatofanyother
    reasonablycompetentphysicianwoulduseinthetre
    atmentofhispatient,saidstandardlevelof
    care,skilanddiligencemustlikewisebeprovenbye
    xpertmedicaltestimony,becausethe
    standardofcareinamedicalmalpracticecaseisama
    terpeculiarlywithintheknowledgeof
    expertsinthefield.Thesameisoutsidethekenofth
    eaveragelayperson.

    Thereisbreachofdutyofcare,skilanddiligence,o
    rtheimproperperformanceofsuchduty,by
    theatendingphysicianwhenthepatientisinjuredi
    nbodyorinhealth[andthis]constitutesthe
    actionablemalpractice.Hence,pro
    fofbreachofdutyonthepartoftheatendingphysic
    ianis
    insufficient.Rather,thenegligenceofthephysicia
    nmustbetheproximatecauseoftheinjury.

    You might also like