Scribd
Upload
1K views1 page

Rubi Li v. Sps. Soliman

The respondents' 11-year old daughter underwent chemotherapy administered by Dr. Rubi Li for bone cancer, but died 11 days later. The respondents sued Dr. Li and the hospital for negligence and failure to obtain informed consent. The trial court ruled in favor of Dr. Li, but the Court of Appeals reversed. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Dr. Li, finding that the essential elements required to prove lack of informed consent or medical negligence were not met. There was no evidence that Dr. Li failed to follow proper procedures or disclose significant risks of treatment.

Uploaded by

Jennifer Oceña
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
1K views1 page

Rubi Li v. Sps. Soliman

The respondents' 11-year old daughter underwent chemotherapy administered by Dr. Rubi Li for bone cancer, but died 11 days later. The respondents sued Dr. Li and the hospital for negligence and failure to obtain informed consent. The trial court ruled in favor of Dr. Li, but the Court of Appeals reversed. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Dr. Li, finding that the essential elements required to prove lack of informed consent or medical negligence were not met. There was no evidence that Dr. Li failed to follow proper procedures or disclose significant risks of treatment.

Uploaded by

Jennifer Oceña
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

Rubi Li v. Sps.

Soliman
June 07, 2011 (651 SCRA 31)

FACTS:
Respondents Spouses Soliman’s 11-year old daughter, Angelica Soliman, underwent a biopsy of the mass located in her lower
extremity at the St. Luke’s Medical Center (SLMC) and results showed that Angelica was suffering from osteosarcoma, osteoblastic
type, (highly malignant) cancer of the bone. Amputation was conducted by Dr. Tamayo on Angelica’s right leg in order to remove the
tumor and to prevent the metastasis, chemotherapy was suggested by Dr. Tamayo, which he referred to petitioner Dr. Rubi Li, a
medical oncologist. The respondents’ child 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 daughter’s 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 is "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 Angelica’s 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 ruled 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.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Dr. Rubi Li and the other physicians were negligent and are liable for damages.

RULING:
NO. There could be no obligation to pay for damages where the physicians did their job. 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."
The gravamen in an informed consent case requires the plaintiff to "point to significant undisclosed information relating to the
treatment which would have altered her decision to undergo it.

You might also like