Richmond v. Patel CA2/2

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Richmond’s 2013 Diagnosis of Adenocarcinoma After a CT scan revealed an abnormal mass on Richmond’s pancreas and lesions on his liver, he was referred to Dr. Patel, an

1The record contains 12 volumes of reporter’s transcript, plus appendices, from a three-week trial. Appellants’ statement

2 oncologist with 30 years of experience in his field. At his first meeting with Richmond on March 6, 2013, Dr. Patel ordered a biopsy. With Richmond’s consent, a radiologist performed a CT- guided biopsy and prepared tissue samples on March 8, 2013. The tissue samples were analyzed by Dr. Miranda, a board- certified pathologist. In her March 12, 2013 pathology report, Dr. Miranda’s “final diagnosis” was that Richmond’s tissue was “consistent with infiltrating poorly differentiated adenocarcinoma.” She did not express doubt about her diagnosis to Dr. Patel. No immunohistochemistry (IHC) test was done because the tissue sample was inadequate. A defense expert testified that IHC tests are used if “there’s not evidence that it’s adenocarcinoma.” Adenocarcinoma is the most common form of pancreatic cancer, comprising about 97 percent of cases. It is treated with…