On doctors' incompetence and hospitals' liability
While we cannot blame doctors for patients who die because of COVID, if and when it can be proven in court that the attending physicians failed to exercise due diligence, to prevent complications and death, then the doctors can be held liable for damages. The hospital can also be held liable solidarily for allowing such negligent doctors to work inside its premises.
The Supreme Court awards damages to victims of such medical incompetence and negligence. The Supreme Court in the Calumpang case, GR 171127, decided on March 11, 2015, held that the claim for damages was based on the doctors' negligence in diagnosing and treating the deceased. It is called a medical malpractice suit, which is a legal action available to victims to redress a wrong committed by medical professionals, who caused bodily harm or death to a patient. This will prosper when a medical practitioner fails to meet the standards demanded by his profession or deviates from said standard, and thereby causes death to his patient.
The Supreme Court held: “The elements of medical negligence are: duty, breach, injury and causation. Duty refers to the standard behavior of a doctor when there is a physician-patient relationship. Breach of duty occurs when the doctor fails to comply with, or improperly performs his duties under professional standards. Death is the ultimate injury. And to successfully claim damages, the family of the deceased must prove the causal relation between the doctor's negligence and the patient's death. The negligence must be the proximate
cause of the death. This can be proven by an expert testimony of another doctor who should testify that the erring doctor's negligence was the proximate cause of the patient's injury or death.” This will be doctors against doctors in court. I surmise that there are many doctors who will testify for the Garcias.
Citing the case of Spouses Flores versus Spouses Pineda (591 Phil 699, 2008), the Court held the doctors guilty of medical malpractice for gross negligence because they failed to immediately order tests to confirm the patient's illness. Despite the doctors' suspicion that the patient could be suffering from diabetes, the former still proceeded to the D&C operation. In that case, expert testimony showed that tests should have been ordered immediately on admission in view of the symptoms presented. The Court stressed that “reasonable prudence would have shown that diabetes and its complications were foreseeable harm. However, the doctors failed to comply with their duty to observe the standard care to be given to hyperglycemic/diabetic patients.” Only a medical doctor can testify to prove these.
The High Court also cited the case of Jarcia (666 SCRA 336, Feb 12, 2012), involving the negligence of the doctors in failing to exercise reasonable prudence in ascertaining the extent of the patient's injuries. The court held: “In failing to perform an extensive medical examination, to determine the extent of R'J's injuries, Dr. J and Dr. B were remiss of their duties as members of the medical profession. Assuming for the sake of argument, that they do not have the capacity to make such thorough evaluation at that stage, they should have referred the patient to another doctor with sufficient training and experience instead of assuring him and his mother that everything was alright.” The Supreme Court decided in the Calumpang case cited above that the doctor was negligent for failing to perform all precautions that were demanded under the circumstances.
About the liability of the hospital for the doctors' incompetence and negligence, we shall expound tomorrow why the law and the courts hold the medical center liable also guilty for failing to weed out its premises of such unworthy medical practitioners. This is getting to be a hot topic nowadays. Doctors must gear up for possible confrontations with lawyers in court. And the Garcias are topnotch lawyers.