1. The Trial Courts found that Ms. Mills did not have evidence to support an lack of informed consent or breach of warranty claim based on expired Statue of Limitations. Therefore, Dr. Pate was granted a Summary Judgement and No-evidence summary judgement.
2. Court Appeals heard a case in which Ms. Mills was filing a case to reconsider her claim of negligence, lack of informed consent and breach of warranty related to a liposuction procedure that she felt did not produce the results she expected and the physician promised. Ms. Mills had two liposuction procedures performed and thus signed two consent forms for each surgery. Each procedure she claims caused further body irregularities which lead her to have a plastic surgery performed by another physician in order to correct the body contours.
3. Issue: what are the parties fighting about, what are the issues before the court?
3.1. #1: Was the trial court correct in granting Dr. Pate no-evidence motion because it lacked specificity in challenging the evidentiary support (which is barred under Rule 166a(i)?
3.2. #2: Was the trial court correct in granting Dr. Pate no-evidence of motion related to the cause of action for failure to obtain informed consent and breach of warrant
3.3. #3 Was the trial court correct in granting Dr. Pate motion for Summary judgement despite assertion that genuine issue of material existed and issue of material existed proving fraudulent concealment of claims.
4. Rule: what are the rules that are being considered being considered by the courts?
4.1. The Rule of Statue of Limitations finds that no health care liability claim can begin unless the action is filed within two years from the occurrence of the breach or tort or from the date the medical or health care treatment that is the the subject of the claim or hospitalization for which is made is completed (TEX.REV.CIV.STAT. art. 4590i, section 10.01)
4.2. The Rule of Fraudulent Concealment requires the plaintiff to show that the health-care provider actually knew a wrong occurred, had a fixed purpose to conceal the wrong, and did conceal the wrong from the patient. (Shah, 67 S.W.3d at 841, Earle, 998 S.W.2d at 887)
4.3. The Rule of No-evidence Summary Judgement must state the specific elements as to which there is no evidence.(TEX.R.CIV.P. 166a(i), Johnson v. Brewer & Prichard, P.C. 73 S.W.3d 193 (Tex.2002), In re Estate of Swanson, 130 S.W.3d 144, 147 (Tex.App.-ElPaso 2003, no pet.)
4.4. The Rule of Breach of Warranty refers to the failure of a seller to fulfill the terms of a promise, claim or representation made concerning the quality or type of product. The seller must stand behind these assertions. (Southwestern Bell Tel. Co v. FDP corp., 811 S.W.2d 572, 576-77 & n. 3 (Tex.1991--noting elements of a breach of warranty)
4.5. The legal principle of Informed Consent: Agreement to permit a medical procedure after disclosure of all relevant facts needed to make an intelligent decision (Showalter,2017, pg587.)
5. Analysis: Considering the facts and knowing what the Rules are, are the legal requirements met? Are the elements for the Rules present?
6. Conclusion: what did the courts decide?
6.1. There was no reversal of granting of Dr. Pate No-evidence summary judgement on Mills informed consent claim.
6.2. Reversed the trail courts decision on granting Dr. Pate No-evidence summary judgement (related to Mills breach of warranty claim) based on the affirmative defense under the Statue of frauds
6.3. Allowing further proceedings related to Mills cause of action related to the claim of Breach of Express Warranty to be decided in the trial courts
7. Impact: Identify and describe at least two cases that have cited the holding
7.1. Fraudulent Concealment: Sha, 67 S.W.3d at 846 finds which found that reassurance given by physicians as a patient heals does not prove or show concealment.
7.2. Statue of Limitation: Earle v. Radliff, 998 S.W.2d 882 finds that if the date of the tort is ascertainable, limitations began on that date. A patient cannot use any of the two remaining requirements related to the Statue of Limitations that would favor their case.
8. Importance: evaluate why a health care professional would care about care about the decision
8.1. A Health care provider should care about this decision because a signed consent form is traditional thought as your "sure safe guard" when adverse events occur during a procedure and a patient wants to sue. I learned that a signed informed consent form actually an affirmative defense but still requires further litigation and cannot turn out in the medical providers favor.
8.2. Additionally, medical personnel need to be cautious about the terminology ("best care", "highest quality") when speaking with patients and their families. If these terms do not match the expectations of patients and families, this can set up a conflict and division during treatment.
9. Influence: Describe at least two current business practices that have been influenced by the holding
9.1. Breach of Warranty:
9.1.1. Advertising or sale literature put out by healthcare systems Marketing/Advertising Departments or MD offices can become warranties related to assurances of high quality health care or healthcare personnel care "competent", "the best", "top", ect. An example of a court case that currently affects the Marketing and Advertising departments in healthcare is Boyd v. Albert Einstein Medical Center 547 A.2d 1229 (Pa Super.Ct. 1988)
9.2. Informed Consent:
9.2.1. A study published in the Journal of the American College of Radiology found that in addition to in-person and written consent process, video-assisted consent provided a benefit of increased understanding in procedure, alternatives and potential risks and benefits. It found a decrease time spent during the in-person portion of the consent process. In practices, this has a benefit of time saved, thus affecting work flow (Thakar (December 19,2017), "Video-aided tools show promise for improving informed consent process", Radiology Business)
9.2.2. In Shinal v. Toms, he Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, overturning a Superior Court’s order, ruled that a jury could not consider information provided by the physician’s qualified staff in deciding whether a physician obtained informed consent.
9.2.3. JOSEPHINE WILSON, Appellant, v. P.B. PATEL, M.D., P.C., and ROHTASHAV DHIR, M.D., Respondents. No. SC 95890 Supreme Court of Missouri decided on May 16, 2017. The issue of informed consent, other state courts have agreed that evidence of it is irrelevant to a claim of medical negligence.