Medical negligence

Dear Atty. Kathy,

My father had to undergo a medical procedure for his condition. The doctor said there were two options — option 1 was the traditional surgery, and option 2 was the newer, non-invasive procedure. The doctor informed us about the advantages and risks of each option, and our family decided to go with option 2, since while option 2 had risks, this option was less risky. Lamentably, my father suffered a complication during the medical procedure. Our family feels that negligence on the part of the doctor is the reason for my father’s complication. Would we have grounds to sue the doctor for medical malpractice?

Jake

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

Dear Jake,

As held by the Supreme Court in the recent case of Que vs. Philippine Heart Center, et al., medical malpractice is a particular form of negligence that consists in the failure of a physician 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; that a medical professional has the duty to observe the standard of care and exercise the degree of skill, knowledge, and training ordinarily expected of other similarly trained medical professionals acting under the same circumstances; and that a breach of the accepted standard of care constitutes negligence or malpractice which would render the medical professional liable for the resulting injury to his/her patient.

To successfully pursue a claim of medical malpractice, a patient must prove that the physician or surgeon either failed to do something that a reasonably prudent physician or surgeon would have done or that they did something that a reasonably prudent physician or surgeon would not have done and that the failure or action caused injury to the patient. If the case is about a lack of informed consent, the plaintiff must prove the following: (1) the physician had a duty to disclose material risks; (2) the physician failed to disclose or inadequately disclosed those risks; (3) as a direct and proximate result of the failure to disclose, the patient consented to the treatment they otherwise would not have consented to; and (4) the patient was injured by the proposed treatment.

Based solely on your narration, it appears that the doctor informed you and your family about the advantages and risks of both options, and your family chose to go with Option 2. Subject to proof that the doctor failed to do something that a reasonably prudent physician would have done or that the doctor did something that a reasonably prudent physician would not have done and that the failure or action caused injury to the patient, you may not have grounds to pursue a case against the doctor for medical malpractice.

(Elpidio Que vs. Philippine Heart Center, et al., G.R. No. 268308, 2 April 2025)

Atty. Kathy Larios