Mills vs Pate, 225 S. W. 3d 277 (2006)

1. Rule of Law

1.1. The court used two laws to rule on this case, TEX.REV.CIV.STAT.art. 4590i, section 6.02 and the former TEX.REV.CIV.STAT.art.4590I, 6.02 and Hartfiel v. Owen, 618 S.W.2d 902, 905

2. Conclusion

2.1. Trial court found no evidence that Dr. Pate failed to obtain Ms. Mills' informed consent to the second surgery

2.1.1. New node

3. Importance

3.1. The case is important because society has placed a tremendous stress on appearances. People are willing to risk almost everything to look nice and sometimes they become victims of unscrupulous doctors.

4. Facts

4.1. What Happened

4.1.1. Ms. Mills states that Dr. Pate did not advise her on possible risks of liposuction.

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

4.1.3. Ms.Mills was never told that because of her age and history of smoking, that she could have sagging skin or ripples.

4.1.4. November 17, 1999, Ms. Mills signed an informed consent form for liposuction.

4.2. Parties

4.2.1. Jocelyn Mills

4.2.2. Dr. John Pate, M.D.

4.3. Procedural History

5. Issue

5.1. Ms. Mills trial court erred in granting summary judgment as to her common law claim for breach of express warranty.

5.2. Ms. Mills claims that she would have proceeded with the second liposuction had she Dr. Pate disclosed the risks.

5.3. Ms. MIlls claims that Dr. Pate included a warning in the consent document for the second surgery after she was suffering with dissatisfied cosmetic resultss

6. Impact

7. Influence