DR. LI VS.
SPOUSES SOLIMAN Petitioner denied the allegation for damages as she observed best
(G.R. No. 165279, June 7, 2011)
DOCTRINE: Medical malpractice is proven based on
lack/impaired informed consent, and reasonable expert
testimony subject a breach of duty causing gross injury to its
patient.
FACTS
1. Respondents 11-year old daughter, Angelica Soliman,
underwent a biopsy at the St. Lukes Medical Center (SLMC).
Results showed that Angelica was suffering from a cancer of the
bone which usually afflicts teenage children. Following this
diagnosis and as primary intervention, Angelicas right leg was
amputated by Dr. Jaime Tamayo in order to remove the tumor.
To avoid further infection, chemotherapy was suggested by Dr.
Tamayo. Dr. Tamayo referred Angelica to another doctor at
SLMC, herein petitioner Dr. Rubi Li, a medical oncologist.
2. On August 18, 1993, Angelica was admitted to SLMC.
However, she died on a few days after her first chemotherapy
session. Because SLMC refused to release a death certificate
without full payment of their hospital bill, respondents brought
the cadaver of Angelica to the (PNP) Crime Laboratory at Camp
Crame for post-mortem examination. The Medico-Legal Report
issued by said institution indicated the cause of death as
"Hypovolemic shock secondary to multiple organ hemorrhages
and Disseminated Intravascular Coagulation."
3. The respondents filed charges against the SLMC and
physicians involve for negligence and failure to observe the
essential precautions in to prevent Angelicas untimely death.
known procedures, highest skill and knowledge in the
administration of chemotherapy drugs despite all efforts the
patient died.
ISSUE
WON the petitioner can be held liable for failure to fully
disclose serious side effects to the parents of Angelica
HELD
NO.
Dr. Li adequately informed Spouses Soliman about the material
risks inherent in the chemotherapy procedure performed on the
latters daughter. It turns out that the type of cancer Angelica is
afflicted with, is an aggressive type, or one that would be
difficult to identify, and has a very high mortality rate among
patients. Dr. Tamayo, also attested to the skill of Dr. Li,
commenting that in such a case, it would indeed be difficult to
fully assess if the patient will recover or if the infection would
spread and cause more damage. The element of ethical duty to
disclose material risks in the proposed medical treatment cannot
thus be reduced to one simplistic formula applicable in all
instances (there are too many variables at play). Further, in a
medical malpractice action based on lack of informed consent,
"the plaintiff must prove both the duty and the breach of that
duty through expert testimony. Such expert testimony must
show the customary standard of care of physicians in the same
practice as that of the defendant doctor.
PETITION DENIED