In March 2006, plaintiff’s decedent Virginia Moehring, 68, who was post-menopausal, began spotting. She sought diagnosis and treatment from her gynecologist at University of California, Davis Medical Center, in Sacramento. After undergoing an endometrial biopsy, which was negative, and presenting to her physician for over two months without a diagnosis, Moehring sought a second opinion from another gynecologist at U.C. Davis Medical Center. This physician immediately performed a dilation and curettage, and subsequently diagnosed Moehring with Grade 1B endometrial cancer. As a result, Moehring was referred to an OB-GYN at U.C. Davis, who performed a laparoscopically-assisted hysterectomy (the surgical removal of the uterus) and bilateral salpingo-oopherectomy (the surgical removal of the fallopian tubes and ovaries). A pelvic lymphadenectomy, or total removal of the pelvic lymph nodes, was not performed at the time of the hysterectomy. Eighteen months later, Moehring was diagnosed with metastatic cancer of the pelvis, and pelvic and para-aortic lymph nodes. Despite surgery by a physician at Stanford University Medical Center, Moehring died in March 2008, as a result of the metastatic cancer. The decedent’s husband, David Moehring, and their two children, Kurt and Mary Moehring, sued the Regents of the University of California, which was doing business as U.C. Medical Center. The decedent’s family alleged that the decedent’s gynecologist and the OB-GYN that performed the hysterectomy were negligent in their care and treatment of the decedent. They also alleged that the physician that performed the hysterectomy failed to obtain proper informed consent from the decedent. Thus, the decedent’s family alleged that the physicians’ actions constituted medical malpractice and that the Regents of the University of California was vicariously liable for its employees’ actions. The decedent’s children, Kurt and Mary Moehring, voluntarily dismissed their action against the Regents of the University of California. Thus, the matter continued with the decedent’s husband’s action against the defendant. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that the decedent sought a second opinion after her initial physician failed to diagnose the endometrial cancer after a negative endometrial biopsy, causing a delay of over two months. Counsel also contended that the second gynecologist and the OB-GYN failed to recommend a pelvic lymphadenectomy, which should have been performed at the time of the hysterectomy. In addition, counsel contended that the OB-GYN failed to inform the decedent what stage surgery she required. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that guidelines established by The National Comprehensive Cancer Network, the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and all current publications stated that despite the relatively benign diagnosis of Grade 1B endometrial cancer, the decedent was at a significant risk of the cancer metastasizing, and had already metastasized to the pelvis prior to surgery. Thus, counsel argued that the only way to accurately surgically stage the decedent was to perform a lymphadenectomy. Plaintiff’s counsel also contended that the same guidelines specified that the standard of care required the decedent to be offered a lymphadenectomy, at a minimum, which the physician that performed the hysterectomy did not do. Counsel further contended that the failure to perform the lymphadenectomy was a substantial factor in producing the decedent’s premature death, 18 months after the hysterectomy. The plaintiff’s experts opined that the decedent’s initial gynecologist’s delay and failure to diagnose the cancer fell below the standard of care. They also opined that the physician that performed the hysterectomy failed to offer the decedent a lymphadenectomy and that it breached the standard of care relative to informed consent. In addition, the experts opined that the physician’s failure to perform a lymphadenectomy, in this case, fell below the standard of care. Defense counsel argued that The National Comprehensive Cancer Network and the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists guidelines were just that — guidelines — and did not evidence standard of care. Counsel contended that the decedent’s initial gynecologist and the physician that performed the hysterectomy both implemented care and treatment that complied with the standard of care, as was the informed consent obtained by the physician that performed the hysterectomy. Defense counsel also contended that the lymphadenectomy urged by plaintiff’s counsel would have exposed the decedent to a significant risk of morbidity. The defense’s experts admitted that the physician that performed the hysterectomy had a practice of not performing lymphadenectomies, and that the physician’s view that the surgery would put patients at risk was one held and practiced by a “respected minority” of gynecological oncologists. Thus, the experts opined that the physician, and the physician’s views, met the standard of care. The defense’s expert gynecological oncologist also opined that the physician that performed the hysterectomy obtained informed consent that met the standard of care. In response, plaintiff’s counsel contended that a lymphadenectomy would have only added 30 to 40 minutes to the operating time necessary for the hysterectomy. Counsel also contended that a competent surgeon could perform the lymphadenectomy in the decedent’s case with a minimal risk of morbidity. In addition, plaintiff’s counsel noted that although the defense’s expert gynecological oncologist opined that the clinical follow-up without any diagnostic imaging studies met the standard of care, the expert admitted that he, and most other gynecological oncologists, would have performed a lymphadenectomy in the decedent’s case., As a result of not undergoing a lymphadenectomy at the time of the hysterectomy, Virginia Moehring had to later undergo major pelvic surgery to debulk metastatic cancer from her pelvis and lymph nodes. However, she died within 18 months of the hysterectomy. She was 69. The decedent is survived by her husband and two children. Thus, the decedent’s husband sought recovery of wrongful death damages for the death of his wife.