1. Mills v. Pate (2006)
1.1. Facts
1.1.1. Parties
1.1.1.1. Joyceline MILLS
1.1.1.2. Dr. John PATE, M.D
1.1.2. What happened
1.1.2.1. Joyceline.Mills told Dr. Pate that she wanted to remove fat bulges she had on her abdomen, hips, and thighs
1.1.2.1.1. On December 2, 1999, Dr. Pate performed his first liposuction procedure on Ms. Mills, which consisted of surgery on her abdomen, hips, flanks, and thighs.
1.1.2.2. Ms. Mills recalled that Dr. Pate told her she was going to be beautiful after having liposuction, which to her meant smooth skin and no pooches
1.1.2.2.1. Ms. Mills signed an informed consent form and a permission to perform surgery form.
1.1.2.3. Ms. Mills, however, stated that Dr. Pate never told her about any kind of possible risks of the procedure, although he did give her a brochure to read and sign, which she did.
1.1.2.3.1. According to Ms. Mills, Dr. Pate never told her about the potential need for further procedures, never told her that there might be rippling or other irregularities to her skin following liposuction, and never discussed any possible adverse effects with her.
1.1.2.4. Joyceline after remaining dissatified past two surgeries with Dr. Pate, sees a specialist Dr Gilliland who suggests he can produce results per Joyceline's request with a body lift
1.1.2.4.1. Ms. Mills was ultimately satisfied with results by Dr. Gilliland
1.1.3. Procedural History
1.1.3.1. The district court granted physician summary judgement
1.1.3.1.1. Determined Dr. Pates adequately informed patient of risks,
1.1.3.2. Patient appealed
1.1.3.2.1. Dr. Pates had breached express warrenty by not meeting Joyceline's standards of making her beautiful.
1.2. Issue before the Court
1.2.1. Whether the plaintiff is recasting Informed Consent to avoid requirements of the Act as Breach of Warranty claim?
1.3. Rule of Law
1.3.1. Necessary elements of a breach of warranty claim
1.3.1.1. Plaintiff must show that the physician promised a certain result but failed to meet it
1.4. Application
1.4.1. Joyceline Mills was promised a certain look/result by Dr. Pate
1.4.1.1. Joyceline suffered with injuries as a result of having a second surgery in addition to additional costs
1.4.2. Patient had an informed consent for second surgery with possible risks,
1.5. Conclusion
1.5.1. Allowed a new trial for Breach of Warranty claim