Mills v. Pate 225 S.W. 3rd 277 (2006)

Get Started. It's Free
or sign up with your email address
Rocket clouds
Mills v. Pate 225 S.W. 3rd 277 (2006) by Mind Map: Mills v. Pate 225 S.W. 3rd 277 (2006)

1. Issue before the court

1.1. Whether Dr. Pate obtained Informed Consent prior to the second procedure

1.2. Breach of Express Warranty Claim

2. Facts

2.1. Parties

2.1.1. Appellant: Ms. Mills, patient

2.1.2. Appellee: Dr. Pate, M.D.

2.2. What Happened

2.2.1. 9/29/99 Ms. Mills had liposuction consultation with Dr. Pate after listening to a radio advertisement.  Dr. Pate made Ms. Mills assurances about her appearance after the procedure

2.2.2. 11/17/99 surgical consent forms for the procedure that identified post operative side effects, but did not mention possible negative affects to Ms. Mills skin.

2.2.3. 12/2/99 Ms. Mills undergoes her liposuction procedure.

2.2.4. Several months pass and she is unhappy with the results of the procedure due to abnormalities in her skin, she is told these are due to swelling and would go away.  After 1 year these abnormalities remain

2.2.5. 1/9/11 Ms. Mills signs a new surgical consent and on 1/16/11 has a second liposuction procedure as well as a thigh lift due to skin sagging to fix the issues from the first procedure.

2.2.6. Ms. Mills is not happy again but again is told it is swelling and she needs to wait it out.

2.2.7. 8/30/11 Ms. Mills has an appointment with Dr. Pate still unhappy with the first two procedures and her appearance, and Dr. Pate recommends additional surgeries.

2.2.8. The next month Ms. Mills gets a second opinion from another Dr. who refers her to a specialist Dr. Gilliland.

2.2.9. Dr. Gilliland informs Ms. Mills that Dr. Pate made mistakes in her care

2.2.10. Dr. Gilliland performs more invasive procedures to correct Dr. Pate's original work.

2.2.11. 1/23/02 Ms. Mills sues Dr. Pate for malpractice.

2.3. Procedural History

2.3.1. Ms. Mills sues Dr. Pate alleging negligence, and no informed consent

2.3.2. Ms. Mills adds breach of express warranty to suit against Dr. Pate

2.3.3. Court found in favor of Dr. Pate for both malpractice and breach of express warranty.

2.3.4. Ms. Mills appeals the case based on breach of express warranty claim

2.3.5. Court of appeals finds in favor if Ms. Mills on the basis of breach of express warranty claim.

3. Rule of Law

3.1. Ms. Mill must show that undisclosed risks would have changed her decision to proceed with the surgery

3.2. Express Warranty was amended to express warranty claim which Ms. Mill has to prove that Dr. Pate made claims about his services that were misrepresented.

4. Application

4.1. Ms. Mills indicates that Dr. Pate failed to inform her of the risks associated with the second procedure

4.1.1. Ms. Mills signed an informed consent for the second procedure that outlined the risks

4.2. Ms. Mills  claims that Dr. Pate made assertions to how Ms. Mills would look after her procedure and that her appearance would have the desired outcome

4.2.1. Ms. Mills provided evidence that her results were not what Dr. Pate had promised and were in breach of his express warranty claim

5. Conclusion

5.1. The appellate court affirms the original court's judgement regarding the informed consent, reversed the judgement regarding the express warranty claim and remanded the case back to the trial court.