Mills vs. Pate
by Nicole Cooper
1. Ruling: for physician
1.1. The 2 year statute of limitations helped the ruling to favor the physician.
1.1.1. Ms. Mills filed in 2003
1.2. Summary judgement to physcian
2. Conclusion
2.1. The court confirmed that the the summary judgement
2.2. The court reversed the judgement in regards to breach of express warranty because Ms. Mills did not receive the promise expressed - beautiful skin.
2.3. I think that the ruling applies to the facts and the law
2.3.1. Ms. Mills would have had a stronger case if there were no dr. notes regarding the risks, complications and anesthesia
3. Impact
4. Business Professioal
5. I found the shephardizing and getting onto westlaw and lexis law difficult. The only information I found that may be relatable is the Texas DTPA
6. The Case: Ms. Mills (Patient) filed a medical malpractice suit against Dr. Pate (physician)
6.1. Patient claimed negligence
6.2. Lack of informed consent
6.3. Breach of Express Warranty - Dr. Pate did not provide what he promised
7. The Facts:
7.1. Patient heard of Physician on radio - promise to change a life.
7.2. Ms. Mills went to see Dr. Pate - promise of beautiful skin - she agreed to surgery, signed informed consent.
7.3. Patient file holds Drs. notes explaining risks and complications
7.4. December 1999, first surgery performed, patient followed all post-op instructions.
7.5. After 6 months, patient had issues, and January 2001, Ms. Mills signed 2nd informed consent for 2nd surgery.
7.6. Ms. Mills went to another Dr who referred her to a specialist.
7.6.1. Specialist said she needed a body lift to correct irregularities of liposuction.
7.7. 2002 Ms.Mills informed Dr. Pate of intent to sue under the Medical Liability and insurance Act
7.8. Summary judgement to physcian
7.8.1. Ms. Mills appealed and added breach of express warranty