DIGEST

1. G.R. No. 165279

Dr. Rubi Li, Petitioner, vs. Spouses Reynaldo and Lina Soliman, as parents/heirs of
deceased Angelica Soliman, Respondents.
June 7, 2011
Legal Issue: How is medical malpractice proven?
Legal Facts:
Respondents 11-year old daughter, Angelica Soliman, underwent a biopsy of the
mass located in her lower extremity at the St. Lukes Medical Center (SLMC) on July
7, 1993 and results showed that Angelica was suffering from osteosarcoma,
osteoblastic type, (highly malignant) cancer of the bone because of that a necessity
of amputation was conducted by Dr, Tamayo on Angelicas right leg in order to
remove the tumor and to prevent the metastasis that chemotherapy was suggested
by Dr. Tamayo, which he referred to petitioner Dr. Rubi Li, a medical oncologist. The
respondent was admitted to SLMC on August 18, 1993; however, she died eleven
(11) days after the (intravenous) administration of chemotherapy first cycle.
Respondents brought their daughters body to the Philippine National Police (PNP)
Crime Laboratory at Camp Crame for post-mortem examination after the refusal of
the hospital to release the death certificate without full payment of bills. The
Medico-Legal Report showed that the cause of death as "Hypovolemic shock
secondary to multiple organ hemorrhages and Disseminated Intravascular
Coagulation. 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. Petitioner denied the allegation for damages as she
observed best known procedures, highest skill and knowledge in the administration
of chemotherapy drugs despite all efforts the patient died. The trial court was in
favor of the petitioner and ordered to pay their unpaid hospital bill in the amount of
P139, 064.43, but the Court of Appeals reversed the decision supporting the
respondents pray.
Holding:
In this case medical malpractice is proven because the four essential
elements of such action are present based upon the doctrine of informed consent.
Reasoning:
There are four essential elements a plaintiff must prove in a malpractice action
based upon the doctrine of informed consent: "(1) the physician had a duty to
disclose material risks; (2) he failed to disclose or inadequately disclosed those
risks; (3) as a direct and proximate result of the failure to disclose, the patient
consented to treatment she otherwise would not have consented to; and (4) plaintiff
was injured by the proposed treatment." Informed consent case requires the plaintiff
to "point to significant undisclosed information relating to the treatment that would
alter her decision to undergo. The physician is not expected to give the patient a
short medical education, the disclosure rule only requires of him a reasonable
general explanation in nontechnical terms.
Policy Formation:

In all sorts of medical procedures either invasive or not, medical institution must
have a certificate of competency in rendering standards of care to delicate medical
procedures before initiating a general protocol that would establish a guideline
principle in a form of proper disclosure of such procedure and presenting a consent
or waiver to their patients so that possible future medico-legal suits will be
prevented.
Synthesis:
In Dr. Rubi Li, vs. Spouses Reynaldo and Lina Soliman, as parents/heirs of deceased
Angelica Soliman, Respondents, G.R. No. 165279, promulgated on June 7, 2011, the
Court ruled that medical malpractice is proved base on lack/impaired informed
consent, and reasonable expert testimony subject a breach of duty causing gross
injury to its patient.