Mills v. Pate

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

1. Facts

1.1. Parties

1.1.1. Plaintiff

1.1.1.1. Joyceline Mills

1.1.2. Defendant

1.1.2.1. Dr. John Pate

1.2. What happened

1.2.1. Dr . Pate performed liposuction on Ms. Mills on Dec 2, 1999.

1.2.1.1. Ms. Mills was unhappy with the results.

1.2.1.2. Ms. Mills alleges that Dr. Pate never told her the risks of the surgery.

1.2.2. On Jan 9, 2001, Dr. Pate perfumed a second surgery to try to correct the results o the first surgery.

1.2.2.1. Ms. Mills again is not satisfied with the results of the second surgery.

1.2.3. Ms. Mills gets another medical opinion. Dr. Miller refers her to Dr. Gilliland.

1.2.3.1. Dr. Gilliland performs surgery on Ms. Mills including abdominoplasty, body lift, and redo thigh lift.

1.2.3.2. Mr. Mills is satisfied with the result. If she had achieved her present body shape after the first surgery with Dr. Pate, she would not have to had any other surgeries.

1.3. Procedural history

1.3.1. Ms. Mills filed a medical malpractice suit against Dr. Pate

1.3.1.1. Claims negligence

1.3.1.2. Claims breach of express warranty

2. Issue

2.1. Did Dr. Pate explain the risks of surgery, and did he breach express warranty?

3. Rule

3.1. Breach of Express Warranty

3.1.1. Was there a guarantee of certain results by Dr. Pate?

3.2. Negligence

3.2.1. Was Dr. Pate's actions below the standard of care that a physician with a similar background would have provided under same circumstances?

4. Application

4.1. Informed consent was given

4.1.1. Patient signed an informed consent form explaining the risks of surgery

4.1.2. Dr. Pate's office notes document that the risks and complications of surgery were explained

4.2. Ms. Mills alleges that Dr. Pate promised her an ideal result

4.2.1. Dr. Pate denies that he ever promised her certain results

4.2.2. There is no evidence or witness to this express warranty

5. Conclusion

5.1. Trial court's judgment on informed consent is affirmed

5.2. Trial court's judgment on breach of express warranty is reversed and remanded for further proceedings

6. Impact

6.1. Physicians document and explain the risk of any procedure and surgery

6.2. Physicians do not guarantee a certain outcome