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. Joyceline Mills (patient)

1.1.2. John Pate (physician)

1.2. What happened

1.2.1. Ms. Mills sued Dr. Pate for medical malpractice, alleging claims for negligence, lack of informed consent and breach of express warrant.

1.2.2. Her story

1.2.2.1. Ms. Mills decided she wanted to have liposuction in 1999

1.2.2.2. Ms. Mills heard a radio advertising about Dr. Pate.

1.2.2.3. Ms. Mills first saw Dr. pate on Sep 29, 1999. She told Dr. Pate that she wanted to remove the fat bulges that she had on her abdomen, hips and thighs.

1.2.2.4. She recalls that DR. Pates to her she was going to be beautifyl after having liposuction. She understood this oto mean smooth skin and "no pooches"

1.2.2.5. Ms. Mills stated that Dr. pate never told her about any kind of possible risk of the procedyre. Particualy Mrs. Mills said that Dr. Pate never todl her baout hte potential risk for addition procedures and that ther migh be rippling or other irregularities.

1.2.3. His story

1.2.3.1. Dr. Pate documented that he explained the liposuction technuey, the incions, risk and complications of surgery and anesthesia. .

1.2.3.2. Dr. Pate also documented that he explained that long-term results may require a small crescent tuck to the abdomen or medial thigh lift.

1.2.4. on November 17, 1999, Ms. Mills signed an informed consent giving Dr. Pate permission to perform surgery

1.2.4.1. The consent form explicitly listed the following complications: discomfort bruising, pigment change, scarring and swelling for up to six months

1.2.4.2. The form warned of serious complications of surgery

1.2.5. On December 2, 1999, Dr. Pate performed his first liposuction on Ms. Mills

1.2.5.1. Surgery involved the abdomen, hips, flanks and thighs

1.2.5.2. Ms. Mills noticed irregularities in her skin that persisted four months after surgery.

1.2.6. On January 9, 2001 Ms. Mills signed an informed const for the second surgery

1.2.6.1. Surgery took place on 1/16/01

1.2.6.2. Dr. Pate told Ms. Mills that the thigh lift would take care of the saggy skin

1.2.7. After the second surgery

1.2.7.1. Ms. Mills was still unhappy with the results

1.2.7.2. Ms. Mills felt she did not look like what Dr. Pate has told her

1.2.7.3. Ms. Mills saw Dr. Pate last on 8/30/01

1.2.7.3.1. During the last visit Dr. Pate infromed Ms. Mills that she shold have pain him to do a tummy tuck or abdominoplsty

1.2.7.3.2. Ms. Mills said Dr. Pate never mentioned that she might need a tummy tuck but Dr. Pate recalled that he did not thins a tummy tuck would be needed

1.2.8. Second opinion

1.2.8.1. Ms. Pate sought a second opinion

1.2.8.1.1. Dr. Gilliland recommended a body lift to correct the irregularities resulting from the liposuction

2. Issue

2.1. Whetheter there was sufficient evidence of infromed consent of the liposuction surgery

2.2. Whethter there was sufficient evidence to support the claim of breach of epress warranty

3. Rule of law

3.1. Informed consent

3.1.1. Physician to adequately disclose the risks and hazards involved in the medical or surgical care rendered

3.1.2. Recovery may be obtained only under the theory of negligence in failingto disclose hazards that could have influence a reasonable person decision to give or withhold consent.

3.2. Breech of express warranty

3.2.1. Negligence in performace of professsionl services

3.2.1.1. Deaprture from an accepted standrad of medical care

3.2.2. Physician promises a particular surgical result

3.3. Concealment of cause of action

4. Analysis

4.1. Informed consent

4.1.1. Ms. Mills argument

4.1.1.1. Ms. Mills reports that DR. Pate had failed to adeqatly disclose information to her as to the second liposuction

4.1.1.1.1. Ms. Mills asserted that i the risks and hazards we discribed to her , she would have refused treatment

4.1.2. Dr. Pate argument

4.1.2.1. Dr. Pate asserts that Ms. Mills lacked evidence as to every element of informend conset to the January 2001 procedure.

4.1.2.1.1. Dr. Pate alleged that MS. Mills had no evidence of duty breach, cuastion of harm related to the touch up liposuction

4.2. Breech of express warranty

4.2.1. Ms. Mills argument

4.2.1.1. Ms. Mills claimed that Dr. Pate made the following claims: 1. That she was a suitable candidtae for surgery 2. that after liposuction she would look beautiful and would hae a smooth skin

4.2.1.1.1. Ms. Mills also alleged that Dr. Pate breached warranty because the services he provided di not confrom to the charter and quality of the servicecs he described.

4.2.2. Dr. Pate's arguments

4.2.2.1. Dr. PAte stated that the quality of the services sold were related to thier patient- client relationshio

4.3. Concealment of cause of action

4.3.1. Ms. Mills fails to present sufficient edivec to raise a act issue on her frauluent concealment claim

5. Conclusion

5.1. Informed consent

5.1.1. Court ruled in favor of Dr. Pate

5.2. Breech of express warranty

5.2.1. Court rule if vaor of Ms. Mills

6. Impact

6.1. Hunsucker v. fustok

6.1.1. Hunsucker brought action against Fustok asserting negligence and fraud

6.1.2. Court granted Fustok's motion to dimiss and ordere patient to pay attoreny fees

7. Importance

7.1. Healthcare professionals would care abou this decision because:

7.2. It changes the physician liability risk