M2 Mills v Pate Court Case

Get Started. It's Free
or sign up with your email address
M2 Mills v Pate Court Case by Mind Map: M2 Mills v Pate Court Case

1. Issue

1.1. The issue in this case, is whether Dr. Pate could have provided more information about the risks and adverse events of the liposuction procedure that would have influence Ms. Mills' decision to have the surgery. Furthermore, the issue relates to whether Dr. Pate's representation did not conform to the quality of his services, given the outcomes of Ms. Mills' liposuction surgery.

2. Analysis/Application

2.1. Plaintiff: In relation to the summary judgment granted to Dr. Pate, Ms. Mills claimed that the court failed to recognize her claims because of the statute of limitations while her injuries arose from her liposuction surgery. Furthermore, Ms. Mills argued that Dr. Pate concealed the risk of abdominal irregularities during the first liposuction, to only disclose it during the second surgery with the reassurance that these abnormalities were due to swelling. She declared that if Dr. Pate had adequately disclosed all the risk inherent to the liposuction surgery, she would have refused the treatment.

2.2. Defendant: Dr. Pate allegedly affirmed that Ms. Mills' complaints should be nullified under the two-year statute of limitations under the Act. He further claimed that Ms. Mills argued that the two consent forms signed by Ms. Mills were proof that she was clearly informed about the risk and that no misrepresentation of the quality of his services took place.

2.3. Court: The court granted the motions submitted by Dr. Pate because of the statute of limitations of the Act under which the plaintiff suit was failed. Additionally, the court ruled in favor of Dr. Pate's no-evidence motion as the plaintiff signed a consent form in which the risks and injury incurred were mentioned.

3. Facts

3.1. Parties:

3.1.1. Joyceline MILLS, Patient and Appellant

3.1.2. Dr. John PATE, M.D., Physician and Appellee

3.2. What Happened

3.2.1. Ms. Mills, a patient filed a medical malpractice suit against Dr. Pate, a board-certified medical expert who performed a liposuction surgery on her abdomen, hips, flanks, and thighs. Ms. Mills signed a consent form and a permission form to perform the liposuction after she was allegedly informed of the risks and complications of the procedure by Dr. Pate. Ms. Mills' surgery resulted in skin irregularities, for which she had to go through two additional surgeries performed by Dr. Pate and Dr. Gilliland to reach a satisfactory body shape. Ms. Mills claims that the Medical Liability and Insurance Improvement Act (“the Act”) was broken because Dr. Pate did not properly warn her about the liposuction adverse events and obtain consent for the subsequent treatment required in case of failure of the liposuction procedure. Dr. Pate filed a no-evidence motion maintaining that Ms. Mills was informed of the risks and had no evidence to sustain her claims.

3.3. Procedural History

3.3.1. The plaintiff filed the medical malpractice lawsuit against Dr. Pate in the Court of Appeals of Texas, El Paso, on January 23, 2003. Ms. Mills' original petition was related to Dr. Pate's failure to disclose the risks of the liposuction procedure adequately. This original petition was amended by Ms. Mills to include a breach of express warranty. Dr. Pate filed a motion for partial summary judgment and no-evidence motion with regards to Ms. Mills' claims on both accounts. The trial court judgment favored the Appellee Dr. Pate. The court sustained the no-evidence motion filled by Dr. Pate. Ms. Mills appealed to the summary judgment concerning her claims.

4. Rule of Law

4.1. Ms. Mills filled her suit against Dr. Pate under the Medical Liability and Insurance Improvement Act (“the Act”), which falls under the medical malpractice legislation. This law involves legal principles with health care provider causing harm or death to a patient by negligence or act of omission. The court used legal precedents Gibbs v. General Motors Corp and Hartfiel v. Owen to determine that the proof established was not issue of material fact.

5. Conclusion

5.1. The court applied the law under which the malpractice suit was filled. Thought the breach of express warranty claim cast doubt on Dr. Pate's representation of the quality of his services, the testimony of Ms. Mills alone was not sufficient to confirm a breach of a warranty claim.