Mills v. Pate, 225 S.W. 3d 227 (206)

Get Started. It's Free
or sign up with your email address
Rocket clouds
Mills v. Pate, 225 S.W. 3d 227 (206) by Mind Map: Mills v. Pate, 225 S.W. 3d 227 (206)

1. Facts

1.1. Parties

1.1.1. Joyceline Mills, Surgical patient of Dr. Mills

1.1.2. Dr. John Pate, board certified plastic surgeon

1.2. What happened

1.2.1. 1999 Ms. Mills decided to undergo liposuction

1.2.2. Ms. Mills schedules consultation appointment with Dr. Pate after hearing a radio advisement of his services

1.2.3. 9-29-99 First consultation with Ms. Mills and Dr. Pate. Ms. Mills' goal of the liposuction procedure was to remove "fat bulges" from abdomen and thighs. Ms. Mills' version Dr. Pate tells Ms. Mills that bulges and sags would be taken care of through the surgery Dr. Pate tells her she will not have any pooches and will be beautiful Dr. Pate's version Exam notes: Explained liposuction techniques, risks and complications Dr. Pate told Ms. Mills of potential long term result: small crescent tuck, thigh lift, quality of skin, and irregularities

1.2.4. 11-17-99 Ms. Mills signs informed consent form that included possible side effects and possible complications

1.2.5. 12-2-99 Dr. Pate performs first liposuction

1.2.6. 6 months following the procedure, Ms. Mills complains to Dr. Pate about irregularities in her skin (2 rolls under right breast and upper abdomen and sagging skin on her thighs)

1.2.7. 1-9-01 Ms. Mills signs consent form for second surgery for a lower abdominal bilateral hip flank liposuction and thigh lift. Form also included risks associated with procedure Ms. Mills version Dr. Pate told Ms. Mills that the procedure would take care of the baggy skin

1.2.8. 8-30-01 Ms. Mills has final appointment with Dr. Pate and expresses dissatisfaction with surgery results

1.2.9. 1 month later, Ms. Mills sees Dr. Miller, plastic surgeon and he refers her to Dr. Gilliland, Houston surgeon specializing in body contouring

1.2.10. 1 month later, Ms. Mills has initial consult with Dr. Gilliland

1.2.11. Dr. Gilliland performs abdominoplasty and body lift - Ms. Mills is satisfied with the results

1.3. Procedural history

1.3.1. 1-23-02 Ms. Mills notifies Dr. Pate of her intent to sue under the Medical liability and Improvement act - filed suit for medical malpractice Informed consent

1.3.2. Case went to trial court Verdict - no evidence that Dr. Pate failed to obtain Ms. Mills informed consent

1.3.3. Ms. Mills amend her petition to include a breach of express warranty claim Court determined there was evidence that Dr. Pate's representations were actionable as an express warranty claim and representations did not conform to the character and quality of the services promised

2. Issues before the court

2.1. Whether there was sufficient evidence to support medical malpractice suit against Dr. John Pate

2.1.1. Informed consent

2.1.2. Breach of express warranty

3. Rules of Law

3.1. Medical malpractice

3.1.1. Informed Consent Failure to disclose or adequately to disclose the risk and hazards involved in the medical care or surgical procedure rendered by the physician. With the knowledge of said risks would cause the patient to make a different decision The purpose of the law - plaintiffs may recover for negligence under informed consent

3.1.2. Breach of express warranty When a physician promises particular surgical results, he/she may be held liable for breach of that express warranty The purpose of the law - plaintiffs may recover for negligence under breach of express warranty

4. Analysis

4.1. Informed consent

4.1.1. Ms. Mills' argument Alleged that Dr. Pate had failed to adequately disclose information to her for the second surgery and if provided this information, she would have not proceeded with the surgery

4.1.2. Dr. Pate's argument Dr. Pate asserted there was a lack of evidence as to every element of informed consent - duty, breach, causation, or harm as a result of the procedure

4.1.3. Courts analysis of informed consent Ms. Mills signed a consent form which specifically disclosed the following risks: dissatisfaction with cosmetic results, possible need of future revision, uneven contour Undisputed that Dr. Pate disclosed the risks and hazards of the procedure

4.2. Breach of express warranty

4.2.1. Ms. Mills' argument Ms. Mills alleged that Dr. Pate made representations too her about the quality or characteristics of his services

4.2.2. Dr. Pate's argument Dr. Pate asserted there was a lack of evidence of breach of express warranty Claims this was an attempt for Ms. Mills to recast her negligence claim

4.2.3. Court's analysis of breach of express warranty Heard Ms. Mill's evidence of breach of warranty and concluded it was not improper as there was evidence Dr. Pates representations did not meet the character/ quality of services performed

5. Conclusion

5.1. Rules in favor of Dr. John Pate in the case of informed consent

5.1.1. Due to the amendment to Ms. Mills petition to add breach of contract, the court's judgement was in part, revers in part, and remand the cause to the trial court for further proceedings