Mills VS Pate

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

1. Appliaction

1.1. Article 459 Section 10.01 The 2 year statue of limitations, Making Mils complaint opportunity to complain, expired.

1.1.1. Section 10.01 Healthcare liability claims must be with in the span of 2 years, from the occurrence of the care or surgery was provided in order to be valid.

1.2. Mills alleged Dr Pate effort to provide information necessary for her to make an appropriate decision was insufficient.

1.2.1. However: on November 17, 1999 Mils did sign the required connect for, giving Dr Pate authority to perform the surgery.

1.2.1.1. Since the surgery took place on 11.17,1999 Mils exceed the statute of limitations with her suit filed 01,21,2003 (more than 2 years after the care was provided)

1.3. MIls calme is based on 1- Dr Pate added uneven contours 2- Dr Pate states irregularities were swellings 3- Dr Pate was aware of abdominal irregularities after initial surgery.

1.3.1. There is no evidence to support Mils interpretation of Dr Pates actions post surgery.

1.3.1.1. Mils believed Dr Pate's intentionally concealed negative results from the surgery. Covering up wrong doing with the suggestions they were simply residual swellings.

1.4. Alleges = Mills / Dr Pate approved Mils for surgery and stated that MIls would look beautiful post surgery with smooth flawless skin.

1.4.1. The allegations also stated that Dr, Pate breached express warranty of service based on the fact that the outcome did not result in what was promised to her.

1.4.1.1. There was little evidence to support hearsay allegations.

2. Conclusion

2.1. Dr Pate informed consent won over Mils allegation over uninformed practices.

2.2. The Trial = Granted no evidence summary judgement for Mills breach of express warranty claim. The Dr did not over promise and under deliver.

2.3. Trial court = Granted Dr Pates traditional summary.

2.3.1. Based on the claims being address outside of the statutes of limitations

3. Facts

3.1. Parties

3.1.1. Plaintiff

3.1.1.1. Joyceline Mills

3.1.2. Defendant

3.1.2.1. Dr, John Pate ( plastic surgeon)

3.2. What happened

3.2.1. According to the Plaintiff

3.2.1.1. Mils requested Dr. Pate remove bulges of fat from her thighs, abdomen and hips.

3.2.1.2. Mils stated Dr Pate said " you will be beautiful after having liposuction. smooth skin and no "poaches."

3.2.1.3. Mils signed the consent form, giving Dr Pate permission to conduct the initial request.

3.2.1.4. 6 months later, Mils, unsatisfied with the results of the initial surgery. ( She found irregularities in her skin, not the smooth skin she had anticipated.) she requested a second surgery.

3.2.1.4.1. Mils was told the irregularities were areas where the skin was still swollen. She was advised to bring this to thee Dr's attention tactfully.

3.2.1.5. Mils signed an additional connect form, giving Dr Pate permission to conduct the second surgery.

3.2.1.5.1. Mis affirms Dr Pate did not inform her of the risks asspciated with the second surgery, beleive it was just a touch up.

3.2.1.5.2. Dr Pate would charge for thh thigh lift and the touch up work would be free.

3.2.1.6. Mils was unsatisfied with the second surgery as well.

3.2.1.6.1. Mils states her displeasure with the result of the second surgery. Does not believe the outcome is residual swelling. Mila is then told she would need abdominal-platys and a tummy tuck.

3.2.1.7. Mils perused outside help, by collecting a second and 3rd option from other providers.

3.2.1.7.1. Dr Gililand stated that the work Dr Pates did on her was acceptable.

3.2.1.8. Dr Gililand eventually performed the abdominal and body lift.

3.2.1.8.1. Mils would not have undergone Dr Pates the previous 2 surgeries, given she knew the need for her to have the body lift procedure.

3.3. Procedural Histor

3.3.1. January 21st 2003 Mils Files Negligence sute against Dr Pate. For uninformed concent, witholding additional procedures required and breach of sxpress waranty claim.

3.3.1.1. Trial Court = Mils objection / overruled. ( no-evidence motion)

3.3.1.2. Trial Court = Dr Pates objections / sustained. (Evidence from Dr Gililands)

3.3.1.3. Trial court = Final order /Dr Pates motions were both granted summary judgment.

3.3.1.3.1. Motion 1 Statute of limitations on the 1999 liposuction. ( it was beyond 2 years)

3.3.1.3.2. Motion 2 an amendment - No evidence for partial judgement, no support for essential variables of mils claims.

4. Issue

4.1. If a Dr provides a promise or consideration about the potential outcome of their work, prior to it's completion. Can they be held liable for result differing from their intended outcome previously stated?

5. Rule Of Law

5.1. Negligence

5.1.1. It is MIls responsibility to provide evidcen that the care she recieved from Dr Pate was less than the standard of care one would reicve iven the same situation

5.2. Breach of Express Warrenty

5.2.1. It is MIls responsablity to proivde evidence to the effect that the quality of work promised, was not delivered.

5.3. Summary Jusgment

5.3.1. Judges rendering= for the defendant, without a full trial.

6. Impact

6.1. Why do businesses care

6.1.1. Lawsuits regarding medical malpractice.

6.1.2. Satetes of limitations

6.1.3. Informed consent forms.

7. Importance

7.1. The case is relivaant to the follwoing business practices.

7.1.1. Thee idea of over promissing and under delivering. Do not write a check your output or work can not cash.

7.1.2. If it could be said, it is important you day it. The more facts you provide the better you can use them to CYOA ( cover your own assets.)

8. Influence

8.1. This case has had an impact on the following cases

8.1.1. Burke VS Macfarlane

8.1.1.1. The date of the surgery = The date of accrual regarding an informed consent claim.

8.1.2. Viera VS Key

8.1.2.1. Supported their claim regarding her actions and how they are not liable for healthcare claims.

8.1.3. Fustok VS Hunsucker

8.1.3.1. Useful when addressing their Dental case.