Mills vs. Pate

1. Facts:

1.1. Parties - Joyceline Mills (Appellant) and Dr. John Pate (Appellee)

1.2. Events - 1st Appointment - 9/29/1999, 1st Procedure - 12/2/1999, 2nd Procedure - 1/16/2001, Ms. Mills Filed Suit - 1/23/2003,

1.3. History - Ms. Mills hired Dr. Pate to perform to perform liposuction and thigh lift. Upon completion of the 1st Procedure Ms. Mills was very dissatisfied with her results. Ms. Mills underwent a 2nd Procedure to repair the problem areas but was still unsatisfied with the results. In the end, Ms. Mills was forced to undergo a final procedure by Dr. Gilliland that ended in the results she had originally expected from her first procedure.

2. Issue:

2.1. Medical Malpractice - Did Dr. Pate violate the Medical Liability and Insurance Improvement Act?

3. Rule of Law:

3.1. TEX.REV.CIV.STAT art. 4590i Section 6.02

4. Analysis/Application:

4.1. Plantiff - Joyceline Mills alleged that Dr. Pate acted negligently by failing to warn and obtain informed consent with respect to the potential outcomes of the liposuction procedure and the need for future treatment. Breach of Express Warranty, Dr. Pate influenced Ms. Mills by stating she was a suitable candidate for liposuction and she would have beautiful, smooth skin after the completion of her first procedure.

4.2. Defendant - Dr. John Pate, filed a no evidence motion for the suit regarding Informed Consent. It appears Dr. Pate also updated his consent form between Ms. Mill's first and second procedures. When Ms. Mills filed the claim that Dr. Pate had a Breach of Express Warranty, he stated "it was merely an attempt to recast her negligence claims as a breach of contract claim....she had no evidence to support the elements of her claim."

4.3. Court - 346th District Court, According to TEX.REV.CIV.STAT art. 4590i the Plantiff must be able to prove that he/she would not have provided consent for the procedure if notified of the risks and he/she incurred injuries from the procedure he/she was not made aware of. The court concluded that there was no evidence that Dr. Pate failed to obtain Ms. Mills' informed consent to the second procedure. The court did find that Dr. Pate's representations did not accurately depict the appearance and quality of the services promised.

5. Conclusion:

5.1. Claim 1: Medical Malpractice/Lack of Informed Consent - Dr. Pate was not guilty due to lack of evidence. Claim 2: Breach of Express Warranty - The court stated Dr. Pate did in fact do so as his representations of Ms. Mills results prior to the procedure did not reflect her results post Procedure 1 or 2.

6. Impact:

6.1. Hartfiel v. Owen

7. Importance:

7.1. If Dr. Pate was found guilty of Ms. Mills claims (Medical Malpractice and Lack of Informed Consent) he may have his license suspended or revoked.

8. Influence:

8.1. Informed Consent, or disclosure of risk, is now required for both clinical practice and clinical research. Breach of Express Warranty claims are present for procedures but even more so for defective products (ex: implants or replacement joints).