2. Fe Cayao-Lasam, petitioner vs Claro and Editha Ramolete, respondents

3. July 28, 1994 Editha was admitted to the hospital due to vaginal bleeding Pelvic sonogram was conducted Weak cardiac pulsation 1 day after admission Repeat pelvic sonogram No fetal movement Persistent and profuse vaginal bleeding Dr. Lasam advised the respondent to undergo D&C Procedure 2 days after admission D&C procedure was performed Respondent was discharged More than a month later Editha was admitted at LMC Vomiting and severe abdominal pains underwent laparotomy & hysterectomy Massive intraabdominal hemorrhage and ruptured uterus

4. Complaint  Gross Negligence and Malpractice against Dr. Fe Cayao-Lasam before the PRC  Respondent’s hysterectomy caused by doctor’s untimitigated negligence and professional incompetence in conductiong D&C procedure  Doctor’s failure to remove the fetus inside the womb

5. Acts of negligence Failure to check-up, visit or administer medication on the patient’s first day of confinement Doctor’s recommendation on having D&C w/out any IE prior to procedure Immediate suggestion of D&C instead of closely monitoring the state of pregnancy of the patient

6. Petitioner’s statement  Needed medications were ordered for the patient  Internal examination was done  Open cervix  D&C procedure if (+) profuse bleeding  D&C procedure was done with patient’s consent  Passage of some meaty mass and clotted blood  Patient insisted to be discharged and was advised to return for check-up  Hysterectomy was brought about by the patient’s abnormal pregnancy (placenta increta)  Perfomance of D&C procedure immediately or at a later date would have no difference at all  Uterus would still rupture at any stage of gestation before term

7. PRC’s Decision  The petitioner was exonerated from the charges filed against her 1. D&C was necessary  Cervix was open  Stop the profuse bleeding 2. Simple curettage can’t remove a fetus 3. More extensive operation needed in order to remove the fetus