Orlando garcia junior vs ranida and ramon salvador
Orlando, florida Garcia, Junior. (Community Diagnostics Center) vs . Ranida and Ramon Rescatador G. Ur. No . 168512 March twenty, 2007
Remember: This is just a sample from a fellow student. Your time is important. Let us write you an essay from scratch
DETAILS:
Surveys takers Ranida Salvador underwent a medical evaluation at the Community Diagnostics Center (CDC) being a prerequisite intended for regular career. Garcia, a medical technologist, conducted the HBs Ag (Hepatitis N Surface Antigen) test. Upon October twenty two, 1993, CDC issued the test result indicating that Ranida was “HBs Ag: Reactive. The result lose interest the identity and personal unsecured of Garcia as examiner and the rubber stamp signature of Dr . Castro as pathologist.
Once Ranida submitted the test result to Dr . Sto. Domingo, the organization physician, these apprised her that the studies indicated that she is experiencing Hepatitis M, a diseases in the liver.
Thus, based on the medical report submitted by Sto. Domingo, the organization terminated Ranida’s employment pertaining to failing the physical exam. It was later on determined that there was a mistake in the previous exam and that the surveys takers was not suffering from Hepatitis M. Respondent was rehired by the company.
ISSUE:
Whether Garcia (CDC) is liable intended for damages for the respondents pertaining to issuing an incorrect HBsAG test out result. ORGANISED:
The Court docket held that CDC was negligent simply because there was no accredited physician in CDC as required by law. CDC is usually not given, directed and supervised with a licensed medical doctor as required by law, although by Mum. Ruby C. Calderon, a licensed Medical Technologist. In the Permit to Open and Operate a Clinical Lab for the years 1993 and 1996 released by Doctor Juan Ur. Nañagas, M. D., Undersecretary for Well being Facilities, Requirements and Legislation, defendant-appellee Castro was called as the head of CDC. However , defendant pathologist is usually not who owns the Community Classification Center nor an employee of the identical nor company of it is employees.
Defendant pathologist relates to the Community Analysis Center where and when a problem is usually referred to him. Castro’s infrequent visit to the clinical lab barely qualifies as an efficient administrative oversight and control of the activities in the laboratory. “Supervision and control means the authority to do something directly whenever a specific function is entrusted by law or regulation to a subordinate; direct the performance of obligation; restrain the commission of acts; review, approve, change or modifyacts and decisions of subordinate officials or perhaps units. Furthermore, Garcia conducted the HBsAG test of respondent Ranida without the direction of defendant-appellee Castro. Lastly, the disputed HBsAG test out result was released to respondent Ranida without the authorization of defendant-appellee Castro.
1
