Get Started. It's Free
or sign up with your email address
Rocket clouds
Module 2 by Mind Map: Module 2

1. Facts

1.1. Parties

1.1.1. Joyceline MILLS, Appellant, v. Dr. John PATE, M.D., Appellee

1.2. What Happened

1.2.1. Joyceline Mills had a routine liposuction surgery that ended with abnormalities that differed than what was advertised from the operating surgeon Dr. John Pate

1.2.1.1. Dr. Pate’s staff showed her post-procedure photographs of other patients and she observed that they had smooth skin and no saddlebags. Dr. Pate told Ms. Mills that all the little bulges and sags in her skin would be taken care of through the liposuction procedure

1.2.1.2. Ms. Mills was also allegedly told that the quality of her skin would not change after liposuction and that irregularities frequently occur

1.2.1.3. According to Ms. Mills, Dr. John Pate never told her about the potential need for further procedures and never told her that there might be rippling and irregularities to the skin following the liposuction surgery, and never discussed the possible adverse effects with her

1.2.1.4. Dr. Pate told her that the thigh lift would take care of the baggy/saggy skin. Dr. Pate did not talk to her about any risks from the procedure and his staff didnt either

1.2.1.5. Joceline Mills did not look the way Dr. Pate told her she would look after the second procedure. He had described smooth skin, no ripples, bulges, and bags, but there was definite bagging on her left thigh, rippling and a bulge on her left abdomen, and a bulge on her right thigh. Further, her hips were disproportionate.

1.3. Procedural History

1.3.1. Joyceline Mills after may complaints regarding the initial and secondary surgery filed suit against Dr. John Pate under the Medical Liability and Insurance Improvement Act for medical insurance malpractice. Specifically, Ms. Mills alleged that Dr. Pate was negligent by failing to properly warn and obtain her informed consent with respect to the probable outcome of the liposuction procedures and the need for future treatment and by causing and failing to correct the abdominal irregularities. The initial trial court determined a summary judgement in favor of the defendant after which Joyceline Mills appealed.

2. Issues

2.1. Patient filed a medical malpractice suit against physician who performed liposuction and thigh lift on patient, alleging claims for negligence, lack of informed consent, and breach of express warranty. The 346th District Court, El Paso County, Peter Peca, J., granted physician summary judgment. Patient appealed.

3. Rule of Law

3.1. Joyceline Mills presented more than enough evidence to support the common law claim for breach of an express warranty. The evidence Joyceline Mills presented in her testimony concerning Dr. John Pates remarks and the promised results, and injuries she suffered raises genuine issues of material fact as to each challenged element of Joyceline Mills breach of express warranty claim with respect to the first surgery, for which she paid Dr. John Pate to perform

3.2. Dr. John 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, rather they formed the basis of the parties’ bargain for the first surgery, and injury resulted to Joyceline Mills. ents of a breach of warranty claim.

4. Analysis

4.1. How did each side present the rule?

4.1.1. Joyceline Mills Argument

4.1.1.1. Joyceline Mills alleged that Dr. Pate had failed to adequately disclose information about the second liposuction and if Dr. John Pate had disclosed the risks and hazards inherent in the procedure Joyceline Mills would not have consented to the procedure

4.1.1.2. Joyceline Mills claimed the trial court erred in granting summary judgement in the initial findings of summary judgement

4.1.1.3. Was already suffering from certain symptoms by the time the second surgery had occurred.

4.1.1.4. Joyceline Mills alleged she was a suitable candidate for surgery by Dr. John Pate and was convinced after liposuction surgery, she would look beautiful and that she would have smooth skin without ripples, bulges, or bags.

4.1.1.5. the quality or characteristics of the services Dr. John Pate sold to Joyceline Mills were, of course, related to their patient-client relationship, these representations are not inseparable from Joyceline Mills negligence claims against Dr. John Pate and consequently, they do not require a determination as to whether Dr. John Pate failed to meet the accepted standard of medical care for cosmetic surgery.

4.1.1.6. Joyceline Mills relys on the previous case of Sorokolit v. Rhodes, 889 S.W.2d 239, 242 (Tex.1994) where a physician promises particular surgical results, he may be held liable for breach of that express warranty

4.1.2. Dr. John Pate

4.1.2.1. Alleged Joyceline Millsalleged she had no evidence of duty, breach, causation, or harm relating to the touch-up liposuction and thigh lift.

4.1.2.2. Obtained informed consent from Joyceline Mills for both surgeries

4.1.2.3. the following risks were disclosed in a consent form prior to the second surgery: dissatisfaction with cosmetic results possible need of future revision to obtain improved results, poor wound healing, recurrence of the original condition, and uneven contour

4.1.2.4. Dr. John Pate’s no-evidence motion, that he asserted Ms. Joyceline Mills’ breach of warranty claim was merely an attempt to recast her negligence claims as a breach of contract claim and, in addition, Joyceline Mills had no evidence to support the elements of her claim

4.2. How Did The Court Apply The Facts In the Legal Requirement

5. Conclusion

5.1. The appellate court decided in favor of the appellate whom it was confirmed Dr. John Pate was convicted of "Breach of Warranty"

5.2. Breach of Warranty does not only apply if a physician promises and fails to perform a service, "but if a physician promises that their treatment will yield a specific result and does not"

6. Importance

6.1. As a healthcare professional you are employing physicians whom you will trust each and everyday to make decisions that impact patient care. As a healthcare organization you can be held liable for being the employer thus responsible for the actions of your physicians and nurses.

7. Case Citings

7.1. Sullivan v. O'Conner

7.2. Guilmet v. Campbell