Plaintiff VanHierden injured his thumb and finger at work and had it surgically repaired. He later developed a persistent pain at the base of his thumb. He went to see the defendant about having a sympathectomy to alleviate his pain. The defendant told the plaintiff, “We’re going to get rid of your pain and get you back to work.” The plaintiff then signed a written consent form to have the surgery, which included the following:

The procedure listed under paragraph 1 has been fully explained to me by Dr. Swelstad and I completely understand the nature and consequences of the procedure(s). I have further had explained to me and discussed available alternatives and possible outcomes, and understand the risk of complications, serious injury or even death that may result from both known and unknown causes. I have been informed that there are other risks that are adherent to the performance of any surgical procedure. I am aware that the practice of medicine and surgery is not an exact science and I acknowledge that no guarantees have been made to me concerning the results of the operation or procedure(s). 

The defendant performed the sympathectomy, but it did not alleviate the plaintiff’s pain; nor was he able to return to work, so he sued the defendant for breach of a contract to cure the pain. The district court granted summary judgment for the defendant, finding that no contract had been formed as a matter of law. On appeal, do you believe the court found a valid agreement between the parties? Why or why not?