In August 2010, plaintiffs’ decedent Yu Jiang, 86, underwent a chest CT scan, which showed a 1.4-centimeter mass inside the bronchus (airway) of her right lung. The CT scan was ordered by Jiang’s pulmonologist, Shan Chu, who regularly ordered CT scans for Jiang, whom Chu had been treating since 2002. Following the results of the radiographic imaging, Chu determined that Jiang would undergo another scan in three months in order to see if the mass changed in size. As a result, the CT scan was repeated in November 2010 and it showed the mass at the same size. The radiology report from the second CT scan reportedly stated that the mass may have been inside the bronchus or inside a blood vessel outside the bronchus. Based upon the two CT scans, Chu recommended that Jiang undergo a bronchoscopy and biopsy due to his concern that the mass was possibly lung cancer. Jiang’s children alleged that one of Jiang’s relatives was present during the conversation and that Chu did not mention any possible risks or complications related to bronchoscopy and biopsy. On Dec. 9, 2010, Jiang underwent an outpatient bronchoscopy (performed by Chu) to obtain a tissue biopsy of the mass in the right lung. During the procedure, after taking a biopsy, Jiang suddenly experienced massive bleeding that could not be stopped. Chu administered epinephrine, which inadvertently exacerbated the bleeding. The physician eventually was able to slow down the bleeding, and Jiang was transferred to the intensive care unit, where Jiang received pressers and fluids to keep her blood pressure elevated. Once she was stabilized, Jiang was brought back to the operating room for a second bronchoscopy; however, during another attempt of the procedure, Jiang’s blood pressure spiraled out of control and she died (within two hours of the first bronchoscopy). Jiang’s seven children sued Chu. They alleged that Chu failed to properly perform the procedure and failed to obtain Jiang’s informed consent. They also alleged that Chu’s failures constituted medical malpractice. The Los Angeles County coroner who performed Jiang’s autopsy, and whom plaintiffs’ counsel retained as an expert, found a perforation in the bronchial wall and an adjoining perforation in Jiang’s pulmonary artery. The expert opined that this was the site of the bleeding, as Chu inadvertently biopsied the patient’s pulmonary artery. Additionally, the coroner testified that no tumor or other pathology was found, despite thoroughly dissecting the patient’s lung. Plaintiffs’ counsel argued that Chu should have never performed the bronchoscopy and biopsy on Jiang. The patient was simply too old and would not have been a viable candidate for cancer treatment, even if the mass shown on CT scans was found to be positive for malignancy, asserted plaintiffs’ counsel. According to the plaintiffs’ pulmonology expert, additional CT scans with contrast should have been obtained, as opposed to a bronchoscopy, to ensure that the mass was inside the bronchus, as opposed to in a blood vessel. Thus, the expert opined that Chu improperly biopsied Jiang’s pulmonary artery because Chu did not have solid CT scan evidence that this mass was intrabronchial. The pulmonology expert further concluded that Chu’s performance of the procedure itself was below the standard of care, in that Chu thrust his biopsy forceps through the bronchial wall and into the pulmonary artery, resulting in the fatal exsanguination. The plaintiffs’ pathology expert testified that the entire episode was avoidable because Jiang never had any tumor, or other pathology, in the first place. Plaintiffs’ counsel maintained that, given that Jiang was a Cantonese speaker and Chu a Mandarin speaker, Jiang did not fully understand the procedure as Chu communicated to her and, therefore, Jiang did not give her informed consent. Defense counsel maintained that the procedure was necessary. According to the defense, a repeat CT scan confirmed the presence of a possible lesion, and the only way to rule out lung cancer would have been to obtain a tissue biopsy via bronchoscopy. Counsel also asserted that Chu obtained informed consent and that the procedure itself was performed in the usual careful and technically proper manner. The defense’s pulmonology expert opined that the encountering of a fatal bleeding was simply a recognized, albeit rare, complication of the procedure and that the fact the coroner never found any tumor on post-mortem examination was irrelevant. The defense’s radiology expert testified that since the CT scans showed a mass or a lesion in Jiang’s bronchus, it was reasonable and appropriate for Chu to perform the bronchoscopy to biopsy the mass., Yu Jiang suffered a massive bleed during her initial bronchoscopy and biopsy. After the physician was able to slow down the bleeding, Jiang was transferred to the intensive care unit, where she received pressers and fluids to keep her blood pressure elevated. Once stabilized, Jiang was brought back to the operating room for a second bronchoscopy, but her blood pressure spiraled out of control. She ultimately died within two hours of the first bronchoscopy. Jiang was 86 years old. She is survived by seven children, consisting of three daughters and four sons. According to the Los Angeles County coroner who performed Jiang’s autopsy, Jiang died to a perforation in the bronchial wall and an adjoining perforation in the pulmonary artery. The decedent’s children testified that Jiang was a caring mother and a mentor who created a close-knit family. Thus, Jiang’s children sought recovery of damages for the loss of affection and companionship under the Wrongful Death and Survival Acts. They also sought recovery of about $25,000 in funeral expenses. According to defense counsel, Chu attended Jiang’s funeral and gave her family over $1,000 in cash, along with a sympathy card.