DR. RUBI LI VS. SPS.

SOLIMAN
June 07, 2011 | VILLARAMA, JR., J| G.R. No. 165279|
Physicians and Evidence

FACTS:
1. Spouses Soliman’s 11-year old daughter, Angelica Soliman,
underwent a biopsy at the St. Luke’s Medical Center (SLMC).
2. The biopsy showed that Angelica was suffering from a form of
bone cancer. Angelica’s right leg had to be amputated by Dr.
Tamayo in order to remove the tumor.
3. Angelica was then referred to Dr. Rubi Li, an oncologist for
chemotherapy treatment.
4. Angelica then died just 11 days after the administration of the
first cycle of the chemotherapy regimen.
5. Sps. Soliman then filed a damage suit against the doctors and
the hospital alleging their failure to observe essential
precautions leading to Angelica's untimely demise
RTC : Held that Dr. Li was not liable for damages
CA: Found that Dr. Li as her attending physician failed to fully
explain to Sps. Soliman all the known side effects of
chemotherapy.

ISSUE: W/N Ruby Li was guilty of negligence or failure to disclose all

the known side effects of chemotherapy thus causing Angelica’s
demise (NO)

RULING: WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED for lack of merit.

RATIO:
1. Informed consent is a physician’s duty to disclose what a
reasonably prudent physician in the medical community in the
exercise of reasonable care would disclose to his patient as to
whatever grave risks of injury might be incurred from a
proposed course of treatment such that the patient may
intelligently exercise his judgment of whether or not to undergo
the treatment.
2. The physician is not expected to give the patient a short
medical education, the disclosure rule only requires of him a
reasonable explanation as to what is at stake.
3. 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 the treatment she otherwise would not
have consented to, and (4) plaintiff was injured by the proposed
treatment."
4. The gravamen in an informed consent case requires the
physician to "point to significant undisclosed information
relating to the treatment which would have altered her decision
to undergo it.
5. In this case. The Court held that there was adequate disclosure
of material risks inherent in the chemotherapy procedure
performed with the consent of Angelica’s parents.
6. When Dr. Lim informed them beforehand of the side effects of
chemotherapy, there is a reasonable expectation on the part of
the doctor that the respondents understood very well that the
severity of these side effects will not be the same for all
patients undergoing the procedure.
7. That death can possibly result from complications of the
treatment or underlying cancer itself, immediately or sometime
after the administration of chemotherapy drugs, is a risk that
cannot be ruled