Breaking and associated brands will be offline for scheduled maintenance Saturday May 8 3 AM US EST to 12 PM EST. We apologize for the inconvenience.


Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision The appellant does not contend that the appellees were not physicians or healthcare providers under the Medical Liability and Insurance Improvement Act of Texas. Therefore, a contract or warranty by them to perform a subglandular replacement of breast implants could not be enforced unless it was in writing. FACTS:Sterrett, the appellant, retained the appellees, Jacobs and his partner (the”doctors”), to perform a subglandular bilateral replacement of breast implants. In order to correct problems with her existing implants, she requested that the implants be placed below the gland rather than the muscle. During surgery, the doctors concluded that it was impossible to insert the implants as requested, so they placed the implants below Sterrett’s muscle instead. Sterrett filed suit against the doctors and affiliated business entities for breach of contract and warranty. The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment contending that the statute of frauds barred Sterrett’s claim and that she had no evidence of any written contract or warranty. The trial court granted summary judgment. HOLDING:Affirmed. The Texas Business and Commerce Code requires certain agreements made by physicians or health care providers, as defined in the Medical Liability and Insurance Improvement Act of Texas (the “Act”), to be in writing and signed by the person charged with the agreement. TEX. BUS. & COM. CODE ANN. � 26.01 (Vernon 2002). Sterrett does not contend that the doctors were not physicians within the meaning of the Act. Therefore, the contract or warranty alleged by Sterrett must be in writing to be enforceable. Sterrett contends that the agreement and warranty were contained in an office note written by Jacobs in January 1997. The note, however, does not satisfy the statute of frauds. It does not contain material details of the agreement; it provides only Sterrett’s medical background and the plan for surgery. The note is not signed by the doctors or any authorized party. Sterrett has therefore not provided evidence of a valid written contract or warranty. Neither can Sterrett rely upon an implied warranty. Implied warranties do not apply to a product provided as an inseparable part of the rendition of medical services. Sterrett does not complain that the implants themselves were defective; instead, she complains about actions taken by the doctors in the rendition of their medical services. No implied warranty is applicable. OPINION:Ross, J.; Morriss, C.J., Ross and Carter, JJ.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 1 article* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?

Reprints & Licensing
Mentioned in a story?

License our industry-leading legal content to extend your thought leadership and build your brand.


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.