1. Impact
1.1. Businesses need to take caution in representing outcomes or promising results to clients, regardless of business field
1.2. Importance of obtaining informed consent in writing and ensuring that the consent forms are clear and outline all expectations and risks
2. Importance
2.1. Cases citing ruling in Mills v. Pate
2.1.1. Access Orthodontics of East 7th Street, P .A. v. Miriam Jaimes ( 2015 )
2.1.1.1. Mills v. Pate was cited in this case with regards to breach of express warranty
2.1.1.1.1. Plaintiff James was promised results from orthodontic treatment and was not satisfied
2.1.2. Juan Gomez, as Parent and Next Friend of Michael Gomez, a Minor v. Pasadena Health Care Management, Inc., and Southmore Medical Center, LTD. ( 2008 )
2.1.2.1. Mills v. Pate ruling cited in this case with regards to statute of limitations on health care liability claims
3. Conclusion
3.1. Court upheld that Pate was not negligent and properly disclosed the risks of the procedures
3.2. Court upheld that Pate did receive informed consent
3.3. Court reversed decision and ruled that Pate was in breach of express warranty
3.3.1. Mills produced sufficient evidence to prove that Pate had misrepresented the outcome of the primary surgery, even though he maintained an acceptable standard of care
4. Facts
4.1. Parties
4.1.1. Ms. Mills (Plaintiff)
4.1.2. Dr. Pate (Defendant)
4.2. What Happened
4.2.1. Pate performed liposuction on Mills's abdomen, hip, flanks, and thighs (following informed consent and permission to perform surgery agreements) which failed to produce satisfactory results for the patient
4.2.1.1. 6 months post-op, Mills unhappy with results
4.2.1.1.1. Pate proposed second operation including thigh lift and correction of previous liposuction
4.2.2. Dr. MIller advised it would take a minimum of three surgeries to give Mills the desired results following the two unsuccessful procedures performed by Dr. Pate - referred her to specialist Dr. Gilliland
4.2.2.1. Dr. Gilliland ultimately performed body lift and patient happy with results
4.3. Procedural History
4.3.1. Mills sued Dr. Pate claiming negligence and failure to properly warn and obtain informed consent and breach of express warranty as an amendment
4.3.2. Pate filed a "no evidence" motion for summary judgement
4.3.2.1. 364th District Court granted summary judgement to Pate
4.3.2.1.1. Mills appealed
5. Issue Before the Court
5.1. Whether Dr. Pate was negligent in failing to disclose the risks of multiple procedures and ultimately failing to receive proper informed consent
5.2. Whether Mills was justified in filing breach of express warranty
5.2.1. Did Dr. Pate deviate from standards of medical care?
6. Rule of Law
6.1. Medical Liability and Insurance Improvement Act
6.2. Common Law (Sorokolit)
7. Application
7.1. Lack of informed consent
7.1.1. Plaintiff only successful if negligence in disclosure of risks, etc. could have swayed a reasonable person to forego the procedure, give or withhold consent
7.1.1.1. With regards to second procedure only (statute of limitations applied to first procedure) : Mills alleged that at the time of signing the consent form, she was already experiencing the risks outlined
7.1.1.1.1. Court found that there was no evidence that Pate didn't receive informed consent and upheld decision; signature on second procedure consent form was valid to constitute informed consent as it onlined all risks involved with the procedure
7.2. Breach of express warranty
7.2.1. Sorokolit outlines that in order to be found in breach of express warranty, the Plaintiff does not need to prove that acceptable medical care was not provided if the promised results are not achieved
7.2.1.1. Court reversed decision finding that Pate, although providing an acceptable standard of care, did not achieve the expressed results of the procedure, therefore finding him in breach of express warranty