1. Analysis/Application
1.1. Ms. Mills claimed an informed consent breech because she felt she was not informed of the possible ill effects of the first surgery.
1.1.1. The claim for consent was filed January 23, 2003 and the initial informed consent signed by Ms. Mills for the surgery was dated November 17, 1999.
1.1.1.1. The claim for consent was rejected due to the statute of limitations. The court determined the claim was beyond the two years statute of limitations therefore no claim could be made.
1.1.1.1.1. Kimball v. Brother states no liability claim can be commenced unless action is filed within 2 years.
1.2. Ms. Mills claimed informed consent breech because she felt she was not informed of the possible ill effects of the second surgery.
1.2.1. Ms. Mills filled out a different consent for the second surgery which more clearly outlined the possible effects that may arise after the surgery.
1.2.1.1. There was no evidence that the physician failed to get an informed consent for the second surgery.
1.3. Ms. Mills claimed fraudulent concealment due to her addressing the abnormalities after the first surgery with Dr. Pate.
1.3.1. There was no evidence that when Dr. Pate told Ms. Mills the irregularities after the first surgery was swelling was done to conceal wrongdoing.
1.3.1.1. There was no evidence to support a fraudulent concealment claim. The court determined Ms. Mills failed to present sufficient evidence to raise a fact issue on her fraudulent concealment claim.
1.3.1.1.1. Borderlon v. Peck states a duty on the part of the physician to disclose a negligent act or fact that an injury has occurred.
1.4. Ms. Mills claimed a breach of express warranty that stated she was not provided the results promised by the physician.
1.4.1. Dr. Pate told Ms. Mills she was a suitable candidate for surgery and she would look beautiful after the surgery.
1.4.1.1. There was enough evidence to support a claim for breach of express warranty. The court ruled that Ms. Mills presented some evidence that the services Dr. Pate performed did not conform to the character and quality of the services described.
1.4.1.1.1. Gormley v. Stover states a claim of action against a healthcare provider is a healthcare liability claim under the act if departure from accepted standard of medical care.
2. Conculsion
2.1. The court decided that there was evidence that would not support a claim of informed consent against Dr. Pate.
2.1.1. The court ruled the informed consent for the first surgery was beyond the statute of limitations therefore no claim could be made. The second surgery Dr. Pate did produce a proper informed consent to the patient.
2.2. The court determined there was enough evidence to support the claim of breach of warranty against Dr. Pate.
2.2.1. The court determined Dr. Pate did promise a certain outcome for the procedure which was not delivered therefore the claim of breach of warranty could proceed.
3. Impact
3.1. Farlane v. Burke
3.1.1. McFarlane had pain after a knee replacement done by Dr. Burke on her right knee. After a second opinion she found out she had a dislocation of the Patella. She filed suit Feb 12, 2010.
3.1.1.1. This case referenced Mills v. Pate. McFarlane petitioned that Burke failed to obtain informed consent for proper right knee procedure. The petitions was outside the statute of limitations.
3.2. Collins v. Snow
3.2.1. Collins sued his attorney Snow for failure to properly present his healthcare liability case against Dr. Gordon arising out of Collins wife's death.
3.2.1.1. This case referenced Mills v. Pate. This case had to prove lack of informed consent. The patient would have had to refused treatment if properly notified of the risks and if she was injured by a risk of which she was not informed.
4. Importance
4.1. This is an important case for a physician to review. An informed consent form must be thorough and explain all of the possible side effects a procedure can have. If the patient signs the form they are acknowledging they understand the risk and cannot come back after the fact and say they did not know what they were agreeing to.
4.2. This is also very important for a physician to be careful what they promise. You cannot promise perfection or give a promise of beauty. Results are not always ideal and if you claim they will be it is untrue and unclear to the patient.
5. Facts
5.1. Parties: Ms Mills, patient who had liposuction performed and Dr. Pate who performed liposuction on the plantiff Ms. Mills
5.2. What Happened: Ms. Mills signed informed consent and permission to have liposuction performed by Dr. Pate. She claims she was not informed of the potential side effects and had two unsuccessful surgeries.
5.3. Procedural History: December 2, 1999 Dr. Pate performed the first liposuction on Ms. Mills consisting of abdomen, hips, flanks and thighs. The surgery was unsuccessful. The second surgery was performed on January 16, 2001 consisting of medial thigh lift and touch-up on the liposuction, specifically the abdomen rolls and a bulge on her left hip.
6. Issues
6.1. This is a case Ms. Mills is claiming she was not informed of the risks of the procedure, the possibility of follow up surgeries or possible adverse effects. The signed consent did not state the quality of skin may change or that the patient would have ripples, indentations of abdominal abnormalities after liposuction.
6.1.1. The dispute is whether or not the signed written consent adequately informed the patient of the risks. Ms. Mills claims the risks were not clearly identified to her. If she had known the possible effects she would not have consented to the surgery.
6.1.2. Ms. Mills also claims she was not given the results promised by the physician and he made false promise to her about what her outcome would be.
7. Rule of Law
7.1. Ms. Mills filed suit against Dr. Pate of Medical Malpractice for improper, unskilled or negligent treatment by her physician Dr. Pate as well as failure to properly obtain informed consent.
7.1.1. Claim of negligence for improper treatment, consent, need for future treatment and failing to correct irregularities.
7.1.1.1. Must prove duty of care by physician
7.1.1.2. Must prove physician violated standard of care
7.1.1.3. Must prove Ms. Mills suffered compensable injury
7.1.1.4. Must prove Ms. Mills injury was caused by substandard conduct
7.1.2. Breach of express warranty claim also added to petition.
7.1.2.1. Ms. MIlls must prove Dr. Pate represented his services improperly and breached the patient physician contract.
7.1.3. Informed Consent Claim was made against Dr. Pate
7.1.3.1. Permission to conduct a healthcare intervention needed to have been signed.