Case: Mills v. Harris

Get Started. It's Free
or sign up with your email address
Rocket clouds
Case: Mills v. Harris by Mind Map: Case: Mills v. Harris

1. Ms. Mills signed a consent form which specifically disclosed the following risks: “dissatisfaction with cosmetic results ... possible need of future revision to obtain improved results, poor wound healing, recurrence of the original condition, and uneven contour.”

2. Ms. Mills alleged that Dr. Pate had failed to adequately disclose information to her for the second liposuction. She would have refused such medical procedure and if he had disclosed the risks and hazards inherent in the procedure.

2.1. Dr. Pate asserted that Ms. Mills lacked evidence as to every element of informed consent to the January 2001 procedure, He alleged she had no evidence of duty, breach, causation, or harm relating to the touch-up liposuction and thigh lift.

3. Facts

3.1. Parties

3.1.1. Joyceline MILLS, Appellant Dr. John PATE, M.D., Appellee.

3.2. What happened?

3.2.1. Patient filed a medical malpractice

3.2.1.1. lack of informed consent

3.2.1.1.1. Claims for negligence and breach of express warranty.

3.3. Procedural History

3.3.1. TEX.REV.CIV.STAT. art. 4590i, section 6.02,

3.3.1.1. For health care liability claims based on the failure of the physician to disclose or adequately to disclose the risks and hazards involved in the medical care or surgical procedure rendered by the physician, recovery may be obtained only under the theory of “negligence in failing to disclose the risks or hazards that could have influenced a reasonable person in making a decision to give or withhold consent.”

4. Issue Before the Court

5. Rule of Law

5.1. The Sorokolit Court concluded that the plaintiff’s express warranty claim was not precluded under the Act where a physician guaranteed a particular result and the claim did not require “a determination of whether a physician failed to meet the standard of medical care.

6. Analysis

6.1. Plaintiff was already suffering these conditions after previous treatments.

6.1.1. Dr. Pate did disclose the risks and hazards inherent in the touch-up liposuction procedure, which she complained had not been disclosed to her in the first procedure.

7. Conclusion

7.1. The court rule in favor of patient

7.1.1. Dr. Pate’s particular representations were actionable as an express warranty claim in that his representations did not conform to the character and quality of the services promised, they formed the basis of the parties’ bargain for the first surgery, and injury resulted to Ms. Mills. ends of a breach of warranty claim).