[Recipient]

Re: Medical Malpractice claim of Ms. Encarnacion R. Legaspi-Vicerra

Date of Procedure: April 11, 2014
Dear ________:
I am writing in an effort to resolve this case without protracted
litigation.
On April 11, 2014, Ms. Legaspi-Vicerra underwent a medical procedure
called Eufoton laser removal of the silicomas (procedure), which you
administered in your clinic located at Medical Plaza Ortigas. After said
procedure, her face was severe swollen and her condition did not heal.
Weeks after the procedure, she was diagnosed with facial nerve
damage and neuropraxia. She suffered severe pain caused by the
nerve damage on her face and could not eat properly for weeks. Her
condition likewise prevented her from reporting to work for # months.
Our client was forced to consult several doctors and to avail of
treatments such as steroid injections and other dermatological
procedures to alleviate the swelling and the soreness of her face.
Despite these efforts, there was no significant improvement in her
condition.
It was only on May 22, 2014, almost a month after the procedure, that
you were able to meet Ms. Legaspi-Vicerra in her office at Total Skin
Care Center. In that occasion, instead of advising her the appropriate
medical remedy, you offered a waiver or quitclaim covering the
amount she spent for the procedure and admitted that you do not
know how to revive her to her previous state. During your conversation
with Ms. Legaspi-Vicerra, you admitted that you had no experience in
administering said procedure and further explained that your fear of
being shamed prompted you to pursue the procedure notwithstanding
your lack of experience and skills. Our client declined the quit claim
offered. Ms. Legaspi-Vicerra demanded for payment of not only the
cost of the procedure but also the other costs of the other treatments
she was forced to avail subsequent to the said botched
Other physicians when faced with this similar complication are able to
promptly identify the air embolism and take the necessary action to
evacuate the air embolism and prevent the patients death. See article
by H.M. Goins enclosed. There is no viable reason or excuse why the
physicians who were responsible for Ms. Marrymans care could not
have implemented the same procedures and evacuated the air
embolism in Mr. Marrymans heart and prevented her death.

Bethany Moss Medical Center has certainly performed its own peer
review of this tragic death and reached a decision regarding the
potential exposure if this matter goes to trial.
(Manila Doctors Hospital v. So Un Chua, G.R. No. 150355, July 31, 2006)
For whether a physician or surgeon has exercised the requisite degree
of skill and care in the treatment of his patient is, in the generality of
cases, a matter of expert opinion. The deference of courts to the
expert opinions of qualified physicians stems from its realization that
the latter possess unusual technical skills which laymen in most
instances are incapable of intelligently evaluating. Expert testimony
should have been offered to prove that the circumstances cited by the
courts below are constitutive of conduct falling below the standard of
care employed by other physicians in good standing when performing
the same operation. It must be remembered that when the
qualifications of a physician are admitted, as in the instant case, there
is an inevitable presumption that in proper cases he takes the
necessary precaution and employs the best of his knowledge and skill
in attending to his clients, unless the contrary is sufficiently
established. This presumption is rebuttable by expert opinion which is
so sadly lacking in the case at bench.
I am reaching out to you pre-litigation to resolve this claim and avoid
litigation. Enclosed please find a disc containing Ms. Legaspi-Vicerras
medical records from and the corresponding accounts incurred.
Would you kindly contact me after you have reviewed the records to
discuss settlement of this claim.

Sincerely,