Kaplan v. Mayo Clinic

947 F.Supp.2d 1001 (2013)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

D requests that the Court (1) preclude Ps from presenting evidence of pain and suffering and emotional damages in support of their breach of contract claim, dismiss the loss of consortium claim, and limit evidence of damages to documents and information disclosed prior to the December 30, 2012 disclosure deadline. P was hospitalized in Missouri after experiencing severe abdominal pain. A CT scan showed an enlarged pancreas, and doctors proceeded to perform a needle biopsy on the pancreas. A pathologist affiliated with the Missouri hospital reviewed the biopsy and, based on that review, P was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer. P sought a second opinion from D and sent D the pathology slides. Dr. Burgart, a D pathologist, reviewed the pathology slides and diagnosed P with grade 2 infiltrating pancreatic cancer. A Dr. Nagorney, a D surgeon, recommended that P undergo a pancreatoduodenectomy, or 'Whipple' procedure, which involves excising portions of the pancreas and stomach as well as the entire pylorus and duodenum. P was concerned about the validity of the cancer diagnosis. When asked if he could confirm the diagnosis during the surgery, Dr. Nagorney allegedly replied that he would do a biopsy of the mass to verify that it was cancer, and if there was no cancer would not complete the Dr. Nagorney did not perform an intraoperative biopsy and completed the Whipple procedure. After examining the pancreatic tissue post-operatively, Mayo pathologists concluded that P did not have pancreatic cancer. P sued Dr. Nagorney for breach of contract, and loss of consortium. Ds got the verdict on everything and P appealed. The Eighth Circuit concluded that the Court erred in granting judgment as a matter of law to D on the Ps' breach of contract claim. The case was remanded.