1. Rule of Law
1.1. Legal Principals: Some of the principles in medical malpractice include informed consent e.g. the patient must be informed of the risks associated with a medical procedure; negligence e.g. failure to exercise care at the level appropriate with medical practice; breach of express warranty e.g. the seller doesn't do what they say they will do.
1.2. Legal Precedence: Blakely v Austin-Weston Center for Cosmetic Surgery: case found that punitive damages would not be rewarded for medical mistake without proof of negligence, disregard, or recklessness. Hefner v Reynolds: Court found that, in the case on an unsatisfactory liposuction, negligence is not necessary for a breach of expressed warranty to be applicable.
1.3. What does the law say?
1.3.1. Parties: Joyceline Mills (Appellant) and Dr. John Pate, M.D. (Appellee)
1.3.2. What happened: Ms. Mills sought medical treatment from Dr. Pate in the form or cosmetic surgery. Dr. Pate recommended liposuction. Ms. Mills was not happy with the result, and needed follow-up surgery from Dr. Pate. Still not satisfied, she sought out another physician who needed to do a rather significant procedure (circumferential body lift) to correct the previous attempts at surgically improving Ms. Mills' bodily issues.
1.3.3. Procedural history: Ms. Mills sued Dr. Pate for medical malpractice including negligence, lack of informed consent, and breach of express warranty. Her case was initially dismissed, but appeals overturned the breach of warranty claim and remanded the cause to trial court.
2. Facts
3. Appellant could not show lack of informed consent because she signed informed consent. Could not show negligence per se because risks were spelled out in the informed consent. The appellant could show breach of expressed warranty and therefore sue for damages.
4. Conclusion
4.1. In order to show negligence, the appellant must show that the appellee was reckless or otherwise careless, and that this recklessness did not meet the standards of the medical profession. Ms. Mills was not able to show that in this case.
4.2. In order to show breach of expressed contract, Ms. Mills needed to show that Dr. Pate made claims or promises about the quality of his work, and that these standards were not met. The appellate court overturned a previous ruling and found that Dr. Pate did breach his expressed warranty.
5. Impact
5.1. INFLUENCE
5.1.1. Cosmetic Surgery because the case is relevant to the claims made by cosmetic surgeons, but also supports that patients can't claim negligence merely because they are unsatisfied.
5.1.1.1. What is driving us to do this?
5.1.1.2. SWOT Analysis
5.1.1.2.1. Strengths
5.1.1.2.2. Weaknesses
5.1.1.2.3. Opportunities
5.1.1.2.4. Threats
5.1.1.3. Customer Findings - What have we learned from customers?
5.1.2. General practitioners have used this precedence to discern between negligence and breach of expressed warranty. This precedence holds physicians responsible for their claims i.e. a verbal or expressed contract is binding.
5.1.2.1. Do we have competitors and threats in these target markets with the proposed offerings?
5.1.2.2. What are our competitors doing and how are they positioning?
5.1.2.3. How do we position against each competitor?
5.2. 10 cases have cited Mills v Pate. These cases range from medical malpractice to cases using the breach or expressed warranty finding from this case.
5.2.1. Service Offer
5.2.1.1. What are we selling?
5.2.1.2. Product Definition
5.2.1.3. Pricing
5.2.1.4. Packaging
5.2.1.5. Positioning
5.2.2. Value Proposition
5.2.2.1. What is the Value Proposition to the Customer?
5.2.2.2. What pain are we solving?
5.3. IMPORTANCE
5.3.1. Health care professionals should care that this case addresses patient satisfaction and claims of negligence. In short, patients need to show cause of negligence and cannot simply claim negligence because the results of medical procedures have risks. Those risks need to be spelled out clearly in the informed consent process.
5.3.2. Health care professionals should also take care not to advertise or otherwise promise results that they cannot deliver on a consistent basis.