This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2015-12-07 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| Solidum v. People of the Philippines[11] provides an exception. There, the Court explained that where the application of the principle of res ipsa loquitur is warranted, an expert testimony may be dispensed with in medical negligence cases:Although generally, expert medical testimony is relied upon in malpractice suits to prove that a physician has done a negligent act or that he has deviated from the standard medical procedure, when the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is availed by the plaintiff, the need for expert medical testimony is dispensed with because the injury itself provides the proof of negligence. The reason is that the general rule on the necessity of expert testimony applies only to such matters clearly within the domain of medical science, and not to matters that are within the common knowledge of mankind which may be testified to by anyone familiar with the facts. x x x | |||||
|
2015-03-11 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| Whether or not Dr. Casumpang and Dr. Miranda committed a breach of duty is to be measured by the yardstick of professional standards observed by the other members of the medical profession in good standing under similar circumstances.[49] It is in this aspect of medical malpractice that expert testimony is essential to establish not only the professional standards observed in the medical community, but also that the physician's conduct in the treatment of care falls below such standard.[50] | |||||