On March 3, 2011, plaintiffs’ decedent Alvin Perry, 58, a black male Veteran on disability, was to undergo a total left knee revision surgery by Dr. Lynn Thomas, an orthopedic surgeon at Riverside Medical Clinic. This was to be Perry’s fourth left knee procedure in five years, but there were questions of his cardiac stability before undergoing the procedure. Perry was subsequently evaluated and approved to undergo the procedure that day by Dr. Michael Buchan, an anesthesiologist. Perry had the procedure, stayed in the hospital for three days, was discharged, and was recovering in a rehabilitation facility. On the morning of the fourth day, a nurse found Perry to be unresponsive. Perry ultimately passed away. Initially it was thought that Perry died from a heart attack due to the stress of the surgery on his body. However, a subsequent autopsy found no evidence of a heart attack and it was thought that Perry’s death was related to a cardiac arrhythmia. The decedent’s wife, Pamela Perry, who was acting individually and on behalf of her husband’s estate, sued Thomas; Buchan; and Thomas’ employer, Riverside Medical Clinic. Mrs. Perry alleged that Thomas and Buchan failed properly test her husband’s heart prior to surgery and failed to diagnose a cardiac arrhythmia. She alleged that these failures constituted medical malpractice and that Riverside Medical Clinic was liable for Thomas’ actions. Thomas was ultimately dismissed from the case, while Riverside Medical Clinic settled out of the case. Thus, the matter continued against Buchan only. Plaintiff’s counsel argued that Buchan should have properly evaluated the decedent and ordered more cardiac testing prior to approving the patient for surgery. Specifically, counsel argued that Buchan should not have approved the decedent for surgery and that the decedent should have had a full cardiac workup done, including a chest X-ray and a repeat echocardiogram, due to historic abnormalities and elevated blood pressure on the day of the surgery. Additionally, counsel argued that a cardiac consult should have been ordered. The plaintiffs’ anesthesiologist expert opined that the decedent should never have been cleared for the surgery and that the patient required a full cardiac workup prior to being given anesthesia. The plaintiffs’ pathology expert, who defense counsel noted did not review the pathology tissues, opined that the patient had evidence indicating a cardiac event secondary to the stress of surgery. Defense counsel contended that the decedent was stable form a cardiac standpoint and that the decedent had been cleared for surgery by an internist within the last 10 months. Counsel argued that there was no need to have the studies repeated, as there was no predictive value for them, and that the EKG and chest X-rays were consistent over the last 5 years. Defense counsel further argued that Perry’s results were abnormal for years and that his death was not due to the subject surgery, but due to his comorbidities, including being diabetic and overweight, which caused the cardiac arrhythmia. In addition, counsel argued that cardiac arrhythmias are unpredictable. The defense’s anesthesiology expert opined that the abnormalities in testing were historically normal for the decedent and that there was nothing negligent about approving him for surgery. The defense’s cardiology expert opined that the studies plaintiff’s counsel suggested should have been performed would not have had any consequence on the approval of surgery. Further, the defense’s expert cardiac pathologist reviewed the pathological tissue and specimens, and opined that there was no evidence of a cardiac-related cause of death. Thus, the expert cardiac pathologist opined that the subject surgery was unrelated to the patient’s death., Mr. Perry passed away on March 7, 2011. He was 58 years old. He is survived by his wife of many years, Pamela Perry and his three adult children. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that Mr. Perry died of a cardiac event due to the stress of the surgery affecting a cardiac arrhythmia. Mrs. Perry claimed that her family was close-knit. Thus, she sought recovery of wrongful death damages. Although the decedent was on disability, his wife sought recovery of damages for the loss of her husband’s household services and financial support. Defense counsel disputed the cause of Mr. Perry’s death. The defense’s expert cardiac pathologist opined that there was no evidence of Mr. Perry’s death being cardiac-related or caused by the subject surgery.