Practice question
A dispute concerns whether a complex dosage and diagnostic sequence met the relevant medical standard. The matter is not within ordinary lay knowledge, the alleged negligence is not apparent without technical analysis, and res ipsa’s conditions are not established. The claimant offers only a lay belief that the doctor should have chosen differently. Which is best?
- Lay disagreement always establishes the technical standard.
- Res ipsa automatically applies to every medical dispute.
- The court may assume all disputed medical propositions without evidence.
- Appropriate expert evidence is ordinarily necessary to establish the technical standard, breach, and causal injury.
- A bad result makes causation irrelevant.
Legal references
- https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2025/apr2025/gr_268308_2025.html — Que v Philippine Heart Center, GR 268308, April 2 2025, MAIN decision: duty, breach, injury, proximate causation, and expert proof.
- https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2024/jan2024/gr_246489_2024.html — Spouses Nuñez v Daz, GR 246489, January 29 2024, main opinion: expert evidence and qualified res ipsa loquitur.
- https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2021/nov2021/gr_250919_2021.html — Supreme Court GR 250919, November 2021, main opinion: technical standards, defense-expert evidence qualification, and exceptional res ipsa loquitur.
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.