Joyceline MILLS, v. Dr. John PATE, M.D., 225 S.W.3d 277 Court of Appeals of Texas, El Paso.

Get Started. It's Free
or sign up with your email address
Rocket clouds
Joyceline MILLS, v. Dr. John PATE, M.D., 225 S.W.3d 277 Court of Appeals of Texas, El Paso. by Mind Map: Joyceline MILLS,  v.  Dr. John PATE, M.D.,  225 S.W.3d 277  Court of Appeals of Texas,  El Paso.

1. Facts

1.1. Parties

1.1.1. Plaintiff / Appellant Joyceline Mills (Patient)

1.1.2. Defendant / Appellee Dr. John Pate, MD

1.2. Background

1.2.1. The Appellant, Joyceline Mills saw Dr. John Pate for cosmetic surgery and was unhappy with the initial results.

1.2.2. After a second surgery, she was still unhappy, and alleged that Dr. John Pate, MD promised her perfect results.

1.2.3. There was another surgery performed by a different doctor to correct the issues Joyceline Mills faced after the first two surgeries. Joyceline Mills claims that if she had known the outcome of the first two procedures could be undesirable, she would not have gotten the surgery at all.

1.3. Procedural History

1.3.1. Joyceline Mills filed a medical malpractice suit against Dr. John Pate. She claimed negligence, lack of informed consent, and breach of express warranty. Dr. John Pate, MD was granted summary judgment by the 346th District Court, El Paso County, Peter Peca, J. Joyceline Mills appealed.

2. Issue

2.1. The Appellate Court is to determine whether the District Court ruled correctly when granting the doctor a summary judgement.

2.1.1. Did Dr. Pate fail to adequately disclose information to the patient for the second liposuction?

2.1.2. Was there a breach of express warranty?

3. Rule

3.1. Negligence (4 elements of a negligent tort)

3.1.1. Duty of Care Did the defendant have an obligation to care for / act in the best interest of the plaintiff?

3.1.2. Breach of Duty Did the defendant than take action to breach this duty?

3.1.3. Injury Was the plaintiff injured as a result of the breach of duty of care?

3.1.4. Causation Was the negligence the proximate cause of the injury? Would the injury still have occurred if the defendant was not negligent?

4. Conclusion

4.1. Affirmed in Part - Regarding first issue- Informed Consent, the court concluded that the trial court was correct in finding that there was no evidence of failure to obtain informed consent for the second surgery.

4.2. Reversed & Remanded in Part - Because of the evidence of potential breach of express warranty.

5. 3 I's

5.1. Impact

5.1.1. GAIL MacFARLANE, Appellant, v. ROBERT L. BURKE, M.D., Appellee. Court of Appeals of Texas, First District, Houston. Opinion issued June 23, 2011. Cited when determining validity of informed consent.

5.1.2. Casey HUNSUCKER, Appellant, v. Abdel K. FUSTOK M.D. and Abdel K. Fustok, M.D., P.A., Appellees. Court of Appeals of Texas, Houston (1st Dist.). July 12, 2007. Plaintiff / Appellant asks the court to consider Mills v Pate appellate ruling in reconsidering her negligence claim

5.2. Importance

5.2.1. Two issues in this case would be important to HCPs. Firstly, the informed consent issue is important as even a slight deviation in the standard protocol for informed consent could meal a potential malpractice suit. The court is very clear on whether informed consent was given or not. Secondly, the Breach of Express warranty is important because it seems like a new ruling which can set precedent for future cases. where Breach of Express Warranty may not have normally come into question.

5.3. Influence

5.3.1. Adherence to informed consent protocol

5.3.2. Greater attention to express warranty qualifications

6. Application

6.1. Duty of Care / Breach of Duty

6.1.1. As a medical professional treating patients, even for cosmetic modification, Dr. John Pate is obligated to, within the best of his ability, perform the operation to better the patient's apperance.

6.1.2. Informed Consent Joyceline Mills argued that Dr. Pate failed to disclose failed to properly disclose information to her as to the second liposuction - and that she would not have gone through with the surgery if he had. In defense, Dr. Pate claimed that Mills had no evidence of anything to assert this claim.

6.2. Breach of Express Warranty

6.2.1. The patient says that the doctor promised her smooth skin and said that she was a good candidate for the surgery, implying that it would turn out as expected.

6.2.2. Dr. Pate says that Mills' Breach of Express Warranty claim is another way to bring up her negligence claim, and that it should be dismissed as well because she has no evidence. The representations that the Doctor set out were actionable as an express warranty claim. His representations were what made the patient agree to the first surgery. The resulting injury caused the patient to enter other surgeries. Although Joyceline Mills' claims developed out of the patient-client relationship, they were not inseparable from her negligence claims. The court says that they therefore amending the breach of warranty claim did not require her to show that Dr. Pate failed to meet the accepted standard of medical care.