The Texas Supreme Court is set to determine whether Soren Aldaco can proceed with a lawsuit against a therapist who endorsed a double mastectomy as part of her gender transition. Aldaco claims that various medical professionals, including counselors and doctors, pressured her into transitioning during her teenage years, advocating for hormones and surgery as solutions to her gender dysphoria. This case raises important questions about the statute of limitations in medical negligence claims, particularly when the timing of the alleged harm differs from when the actions that caused it took place.
Aldaco’s attorney, John Ramer, described the situation as a “medical scandal,” claiming that young individuals experiencing significant psychological distress were misled by healthcare providers. “Kids and young adults suffering from severe psychological distress went looking for help and what they found is medical providers saying that what’s going to liberate them from their distress is pumping them full of cross-sex hormones and cutting off their body parts,” Ramer asserted to the justices.
Aldaco began identifying as male during her eighth and ninth grades, influenced by a difficult family background and interactions with transgender peers online. In 2018, she was hospitalized for a manic episode, during which a doctor allegedly pressured her to identify as transgender. Following this, she started taking testosterone, leading to a series of counseling sessions with Barbara Wood of Three Oaks Counseling in 2020. Aldaco indicated that these sessions primarily addressed relationship issues, rather than her gender identity.
In a recommendation letter dated February 22, 2021, Wood suggested Aldaco undergo a double mastectomy, which she pursued later that year at the Crane Clinic in Austin. Aldaco underwent the procedure in June 2021 at the age of 19 but subsequently experienced complications, including severe pain and blood pooling around her chest wounds. Following her surgery, Aldaco decided to “detransition,” attributing her struggles with gender identity to a stressful adolescence and external influences. She found comfort through meditation instead of through medical interventions.
In May 2023, Aldaco sent a pre-suit notice and filed her medical negligence lawsuit in July. The lawsuit alleges that Wood failed to adequately assess Aldaco’s mental health and inaccurately stated that she had been treated for gender dysphoria and had lived as a transgender man for a year. Under Texas law, health care liability claims must be filed within two years of the alleged incident, leading to a dispute about when the limitations period began. Wood and Three Oaks contend that the period commenced in February 2021, therefore requiring Aldaco to file her lawsuit by February 2023.
William Newman, representing Wood and Three Oaks, stated, “She was given a letter that she requested. It’s hard for me to understand exactly how that gets different from any routine medical negligence that’s not discovered until later.” The Fort Worth Second Court of Appeals supported the defendants’ position. In contrast, Aldaco argues that a tort has not occurred until damages are evident, claiming her surgery in June 2021 represents the point at which she was harmed. Aldaco contends that if she had sued immediately after receiving the recommendation letter, the defendants could have dismissed the case due to the absence of physical or financial injury at that stage.
Aldaco expressed her belief in the validity of her case, stating, “Detrans Texans deserve better. I am confident my case has merit, and I am confident God will deliver justice.” The Texas Supreme Court has previously upheld legislation banning healthcare providers from offering gender-affirming care to minors, a contentious issue in the ongoing debate surrounding transgender health care.
Major medical associations in the United States advocate for gender-affirming care as the appropriate standard for treating transgender youth experiencing gender dysphoria. Research indicates that approximately 1% of individuals who undergo gender-affirmation surgeries later regret the decision, though the exact figure remains uncertain. Recently, a coalition of 60 Texas House Republicans issued a statement urging the court to allow Aldaco’s claims to proceed, indicating their intention to advance legislation aimed at extending the malpractice limitations period for “detransitioners harmed by negligent providers.”
As the case unfolds, the implications for healthcare providers and the treatment of transgender individuals could be significant. The Texas Supreme Court’s decision will likely influence not only Aldaco’s situation but also the broader landscape of transgender healthcare in the state.
