Scribd
Upload
86 views3 pages

Dr. Fernando P. Solidum vs. People of The Philippines G.R. No. 192123 March 10, 2014 Bersamin, J.: Doctrine

This case involves Dr. Fernando Solidum who was criminally charged with reckless imprudence resulting in serious physical injuries for his role as the anesthesiologist during a patient's surgery. The court ruled that the prosecution failed to prove the elements of medical negligence. Expert testimony from medical professionals is required to establish the standard of care and whether it was breached. Here, the prosecution presented no expert witness in anesthesia. While the patient experienced complications during surgery, the circumstances did not prove beyond reasonable doubt that Dr. Solidum was reckless in his administration of anesthesia.

Uploaded by

Michael Vincent Bautista
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
86 views3 pages

Dr. Fernando P. Solidum vs. People of The Philippines G.R. No. 192123 March 10, 2014 Bersamin, J.: Doctrine

This case involves Dr. Fernando Solidum who was criminally charged with reckless imprudence resulting in serious physical injuries for his role as the anesthesiologist during a patient's surgery. The court ruled that the prosecution failed to prove the elements of medical negligence. Expert testimony from medical professionals is required to establish the standard of care and whether it was breached. Here, the prosecution presented no expert witness in anesthesia. While the patient experienced complications during surgery, the circumstances did not prove beyond reasonable doubt that Dr. Solidum was reckless in his administration of anesthesia.

Uploaded by

Michael Vincent Bautista
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

DR. FERNANDO P.

SOLIDUM
vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

G.R. No. 192123               March 10, 2014

BERSAMIN, J.:

DOCTRINE

The standard of medical care of a prudent physician must be determined


from expert testimony in most cases; and in the case of a specialist (like an
anesthesiologist), the standard of care by which the specialist is judged is the
care and skill commonly possessed and exercised by similar specialists under
similar circumstances. The specialty standard of care may be higher than that
required of the general practitioner

FACTS

Gerald Albert Gercayo Gerald was born on June 2, 1992 with an


imperforate anus. Two days after his birth, Gerald underwent colostomy, a
surgical procedure to bring one end of the large intestine out through the
abdominal wall, enabling him to excrete through a colostomy bag attached to
the side of his body.

On May 17, 1995, Gerald, then three years old, was admitted at the
Ospital ng Maynila for a pull-through operation. Dr. Leandro Resurreccion
headed the surgical team, and was assisted by Dr. Joselito Luceño, Dr.
Donatella Valeña and Dr. Joseph Tibio. The anesthesiologists included Dr.
Marichu Abella, Dr. Arnel Razon and petitioner Dr. Fernando Solidum. During
the operation, Gerald experienced bradycardia, and went into a coma. His
coma lasted for two weeks, but he regained consciousness only after a
month. He could no longer see, hear or move.
Agitated by her son’s helpless and unexpected condition, Ma. Luz Gercayo
lodged a complaint for reckless imprudence resulting in serious physical
injuries with the City Prosecutor’s Office of Manila against the attending
physicians.

ISSUE

Is Dr. Solidum guilty of negligence?

RULING

No. An action upon medical negligence – whether criminal, civil or


administrative – calls for the plaintiff to prove by competent evidence each of
the following four elements, namely: (a) the duty owed by the physician to the
patient, as created by the physician-patient relationship, to act in accordance
with the specific norms or standards established by his profession; (b) the
breach of the duty by the physician’s failing to act in accordance with the
applicable standard of care; (3) the causation, i.e., there must be a reasonably
close and causal connection between the negligent act or omission and the
resulting injury; and (4) the damages suffered by the patient.

In attempting to fix a standard by which a court may determine whether


the physician has properly performed the requisite duty toward the patient,
expert medical testimony from both plaintiff and defense experts is required.
The judge, as the trier of fact, ultimately determines the standard of care, after
listening to the testimony of all medical experts.

Here, the Prosecution presented no witnesses with special medical


qualifications in anesthesia to provide guidance to the trial court on what
standard of care was applicable. It would consequently be truly difficult, if not
impossible, to determine whether the first three elements of a negligence and
malpractice action were attendant.

Dr. Solidum was criminally charged for "failing to monitor and regulate
properly the levels of anesthesia administered to said Gerald Albert Gercayo
and using 100% halothane and other anesthetic medications." However, the
foregoing circumstances, taken together, did not prove beyond reasonable
doubt that Dr. Solidum had been recklessly imprudent in administering the
anesthetic agent to Gerald. Indeed, Dr. Vertido’s findings did not preclude the
probability that other factors related to Gerald’s major operation, which could
or could not necessarily be attributed to the administration of the anesthesia,
had caused the hypoxia and had then led Gerald to experience bradycardia.
Dr. Vertido revealingly concluded in his report, instead, that "although the
anesthesiologist followed the normal routine and precautionary procedures,
still hypoxia and its corresponding side effects did occur.

You might also like