This is in response to the letter sent by Mr.noel sy last july 31, 2013, regarding an alleged incident of malpractice/misdiagnosis on a certain patient named alexander rabaca. in the letter it was stated that the patient, mr, rabaca, sustained injuries from a motorcycle accident that occurred last  july 2, 2013 at around 8am, along malhacan road in meycauayan bulacan. it was also quoted tnat "after an hour of observations and examinations the patient was given medical clearance with no practure or major injury sustained by medical professionals identified to be a  certain dr. palanca and dr.condecido, radiologist and er doctor."
this serve as my written explanation on the allegations, on the said letter.
1) allegedly i was part of the medical professionals who issued medical clearance to the patient during his er confinement
 i was never part of the ER team who gave immediate medical attention to Mr. Rabaca and issued a medical clearance to him during his emergency stay that morning. one of the requested tests was an xray procedure, however during this time i have not yet seen his xray film as  i was only able to read the film on july 2, 2013 between 3-4pm, which i believe that by this time the patient has already been sent home  as substantiated by his er records. also there was no request for a radiologist to conduct a wet (initial) reading on the patient's xray when he was admitted to the er until the time that he was discharged.
2.)there were 2 xray results that was issued to the patient, 1st was last last july 2 and july 9
        a) on july 2, 2013 reading
           - impression read during this time was normal because there were no clear cut fractures seen on the ap and lateral views of the xray. As a radiologist, our readings are always treated as aids in diagnosing a patient condition and in most cases, we don't have direct observations or history on the patient. in mr rabaco's case, i have not personally diagnosed him, only his xray film without initial information provided.
        b)on july 9 reading
           - a representative of the patient asked for a re-reading of his xray film as he was referred back by his attending orthopedic surgeon because of an apparent clinical findings on his knee. during this time my 2nd reading, aided with the patient history and the orthooedic surgeon's perspective of a strong suspicion of fracture, i was able to conduct a thorough examination of the xray. 2nd impression was sign out as "note of linear lucency in the lateral condyle of the tibia (consider non displaced fracture)".
 in the medical field i am fully aware of the consequences once a patient condition is misdiagnosed, it could mean that a life may be lost. as a
a physician, particularly
 i hope that thru this explanation it will shed light to the allegations raised against me especially with the issue of misdiagnosis. being y a radiologist, it is inculcated to us that we are partners of doctors who are tasked to cure patients and with this supplementary partnership our main goal has always been for the benefit of the patient. with this in mind it has been my practice to always ensure that my readings/diagnosis as a radiologist are sound basis in order to properly treat a patient.