Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • TORTS - Li V Soliman

    Uploaded by

    megpcastillo
    89 views1 page
    The respondents sued the doctor for negligence after their 11-year-old daughter died 11 days after her first chemotherapy treatment for bone cancer. The respondents claimed the doctor did not fully inform them of the side effects of chemotherapy and that they would not have consented if they knew all the risks. The court found no negligence, as the respondents did not provide expert testimony from an oncologist on the standard of care for informing patients of chemotherapy risks. The nature of cancer and individual reactions to treatment cannot be precisely determined, so it was unlikely the doctor falsely assured a 95% success rate. To prove negligence based on lack of informed consent requires expert testimony on the duty to disclose risks and what was not disclosed.

    Original Description:

    Li v Soliman

    Original Title

    TORTS_Li v Soliman

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The respondents sued the doctor for negligence after their 11-year-old daughter died 11 days after her first chemotherapy treatment for bone cancer. The respondents claimed the doctor did not fully inform them of the side effects of chemotherapy and that they would not have consented if they knew all the risks. The court found no negligence, as the respondents did not provide expert testimony from an oncologist on the standard of care for informing patients of chemotherapy risks. The nature of cancer and individual reactions to treatment cannot be precisely determined, so it was unlikely the doctor falsely assured a 95% success rate. To prove negligence based on lack of informed consent requires expert testimony on the duty to disclose risks and what was not disclosed.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    89 views1 page

    TORTS - Li V Soliman

    Uploaded by

    megpcastillo
    The respondents sued the doctor for negligence after their 11-year-old daughter died 11 days after her first chemotherapy treatment for bone cancer. The respondents claimed the doctor did not fully inform them of the side effects of chemotherapy and that they would not have consented if they knew all the risks. The court found no negligence, as the respondents did not provide expert testimony from an oncologist on the standard of care for informing patients of chemotherapy risks. The nature of cancer and individual reactions to treatment cannot be precisely determined, so it was unlikely the doctor falsely assured a 95% success rate. To prove negligence based on lack of informed consent requires expert testimony on the duty to disclose risks and what was not disclosed.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    (TORTS) Li v Soliman Facts: Respondents 11 year old daughter, Angelica Soliman, underwent a biopsy of the mass located in her

    lower extremity at St. Lukes Medical Center. She was diagnosed with cancer of the bone which led to the amputation of her right leg. Chemotherapy was suggested to prevent the disease from spreading to other parts of the body, and Angelica was recommended to an oncologist Dr. Rubi Li, also a doctor in St. Lukes. Angelica was admitted to St. Lukes for chemo but died 11 days after the intravenous administration of the first cycle of the chemo. SLMC refused to release a death certificate without full payment of their hospital bill The respondents brought the cadaver of Angelica to the PNP Crime lab for post-mortem examination (Hypovolemic shock secondary to multiple organ hemorrhages and disseminated intravascular coagulation) SLMC Death Certificate ( Immediate cause: osteosarcoma, status post aka; Antecedent cause: above knee amputation; Underlying case: status post chemotherapy) Respondents filed a damage suit **Basically, what the respondents were contending was that the doctor didnt fully inform them of the side effects of the chemo, and that if they had known of all the side effects, they would not have consented. RTC: no negligence at all; CA: no negligence in administration of chemo treatment, but was negligent as the attending physician for failing to fully explain to the respondents all the known side effects of chemotherapy

    ISSUE: Whether or not petitioner was negligent HELD: NO. RTC decision reinstated and upheld. Four essential elements a plaintiff must prove in a malpractice action based upon the doctrine of informed consent: o Physician had a duty to disclose material risks o Failed to disclose or inadequately disclose those risks o As a direct and proximate result of the failure to disclose, the patient consented to treatment she otherwise would not have consented to o 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. The nature of the disease itself, each patients reaction to chemical agents cannot be precisely determined by the physician. Unlikely for doctors like petitioner who were dealing with grave condition such as cancer to have falsely assured patients of chemotherapys success rate. (it was alleged that petitioner assured respondents of a 95% healing rate) The plaintiff must prove both the duty and the breach of that duty through expert testimony, and such must show the customary standard of care of physicians in the same practice as that of the defendant doctor. (case to case basis) In the absence of expert testimony in this regard, the Court feels hesitant in defining the scope of mandatory disclosure in cases of malpractice based on lack of informed consent. o Testimony of a medical specialist (not an oncologist) does not qualify as expert.

    You might also like