In May 2008, plaintiff Sharon Pickard, 45, a homemaker, underwent a mammogram performed by Dr. Julie Barone, an oncologist, at Scripps Memorial Hospital La Jolla. Barone noted a suspicious finding in Pickard’s right breast, resulting in both an incisional biopsy and core biopsy. The incisional and core biopsies were respectively interpreted by Dr. Stephen Carlson and Dr. Pamela Price, pathologists who were employed by Laboratory Diagnostics Medical Group. Both Carlson and Price determined that the growth was atypia, a benign abnormality. In 2010, Pickard treated at UC San Diego Medical Center, where the staff reviewed her pathology slides from 2008. The doctors subsequently had the growth rebiopsied, and Pickard was diagnosed with cancer of the right breast. As a result, she underwent a right mastectomy. Pickard sued Scripps Memorial Hospital La Jolla, Carlson, Price, and Laboratory Diagnostics Medical Group. She alleged the defendants misdiagnosed her breast cancer and that this misdiagnosis constituted medical malpractice. Prior to trial, Scripps Memorial Hospital was dismissed from the case for a waiver of costs. Price was also dismissed from the action. Thus, the matter continued against Carlson and Laboratory Diagnostics only. Pickard’s counsel contended that Carlson misinterpreted the 2008 incisional biopsy, in that he should have diagnosed the growth as malignant. Counsel also presented claims from the medical staff at UC San Diego Medical Center, in which they confirmed the misdiagnosis when reviewing Pickard’s 2008 pathology slides. Pickard claimed that had her cancer been diagnosed in 2008, she could have avoided the mastectomy for a less invasive lumpectomy paired with chemotherapy. She further claimed that she is now at a greater risk for metastization, due to the invasive component of her cancer. Defense counsel contended that the medical staff at UC San Diego overinterpreted what was read from the pathology slides, and that they had “hindsight bias.” Thus, Carlson claimed that he was correct in diagnosing a benign atypia, which had simply developed into cancer sometime over the next two years., Pickard was diagnosed with cancer of the right breast in 2010. As a result, she underwent a right mastectomy. Pickard claimed she is now at a greater risk for metastization, and could require a future mastectomy and/or reconstruction surgery. She also claimed she now has a fear of death due to the risk of the cancer returning and metastasizing, resulting in severe emotional distress. Thus, Pickard sought recovery of $18,000 in out-of-pocket expenses, $50,000 in future medical costs and $250,000 in pain and suffering. Her husband, Robert Pickard, sought recovery of $125,000 for his loss of consortium. Defense counsel argued that Mrs. Pickard was simply unlucky in developing breast cancer, as her biology was prone to it. Counsel also argued that Mrs. Pickard’s pre-existing ovarian cancer was at a higher risk for metastization than her breast cancer.