The Texas Supreme Court has breathed new life into a detransitioner's quest for justice, ruling that her medical malpractice lawsuit against a therapist who recommended gender transition surgery was not filed too late under the state's strict statute of limitations. The unanimous decision, delivered on June 26, reverses a lower court's finding that Soren Aldaco's 2023 claims were time-barred, marking a significant legal victory for those who allege harm from medical transition procedures.
Aldaco, who underwent a double mastectomy as part of her gender transition, has since detransitioned and is now pursuing legal action against the healthcare providers she says facilitated her transition without adequately addressing her underlying mental health issues. The core of the case revolves around when the two-year statute of limitations for medical malpractice claims begins to run. Under Texas law, patients generally have a strict two-year window to file such lawsuits, but the question in Aldaco's case was whether that clock started when her therapist wrote a letter recommending surgery in February 2021 or when the actual harm occurred.
The Texas Supreme Court, in an opinion written by Justice James Sullivan, concluded that the statute of limitations began when the injury occurred, not when the therapist provided the recommendation letter. The court stated, «The court of appeals rejected Aldaco’s arguments and held that the clock began ticking on February 22, 2021, when Wood 'penned and provided the allegedly tortious recommendation letter' without which the double mastectomy couldn’t have occurred... We disagree.» This ruling effectively allows Aldaco to proceed with her lawsuit against her former therapist and the associated counseling group.
Aldaco expressed relief and determination following the ruling, describing it as a «huge» win in an exclusive interview with Fox News Digital. «It sets precedent that in this unique area of law, providers can't skirt accountability by playing with the dates and the statute of limitations,» she said. Aldaco added that her goal is to «seek every avenue possible to get justice against these providers who took advantage of my vulnerable mental state.» She believes the decision will make healthcare providers «think twice» and «dig deeper» into what patients are experiencing before jumping to invasive medical interventions.
The case has broader implications beyond Aldaco's individual lawsuit. Legal experts and lawmakers are paying close attention to how the ruling might affect future medical malpractice claims related to gender transition procedures. Aldaco noted that cases involving trans-related medical malpractice involve «developmental factors at play that are unique compared to other areas of medicine.» She described the treatments she received as «bandage treatments» that failed to address underlying wounds, including a history of trauma that she says her therapist ignored.
Aldaco is also taking her fight to the Texas Legislature, where she intends to push for comprehensive legislation that would extend the statute of limitations for others who have experienced similar harm. «In our upcoming 90th legislative session, I intend to do everything I can to pass comprehensive legislation that'll open the statute of limitations for other people who have experienced similar harm,» she said. Texas lawmakers have expressed interest in addressing the issue. State Rep. Shelby Slawson told The Texan that she plans to refile bills extending the statute of limitations for injured Texans like Aldaco, while State Rep. Jeff Leach posted on X that the Supreme Court opinion is «just the next step in this important battle — with much more left to do in the next session.»
The ruling applies only to Aldaco's claims against her therapist and the counseling group. The physicians who performed her double mastectomy and their medical practice were parties to a separate appeal, and Aldaco's claims against them were dismissed on other grounds. The office of the attorney representing those physicians told Fox News Digital that the dismissal was «pursuant to a separate order entered on grounds unrelated to those at issue in the Texas Supreme Court’s decision.» Despite this, Aldaco remains focused on moving forward with her case and hopes her victory will inspire others in similar situations. «I just hope that this win that we experienced this week, both in my own case and at the federal, U.S. Supreme Court level, I hope that that encourages other people to seek justice,» she said.
In a February op-ed for Fox News Digital, Aldaco wrote that accountability for doctors «does not vanish because a patient 'wanted it.'» She alleged that her transition was facilitated by medical professionals who ignored her underlying trauma and coached her to navigate insurance hurdles. The Texas Supreme Court's decision now allows her to pursue that accountability in court, potentially setting a precedent that could reshape how similar cases are handled in the future.
