On March 8, 2010, plaintiff Gheorghe Berbecel, Ph.D., 49, a digital video engineer at Broadcom, first presented to Dr. Samy Younis, an internist. He then returned to Younis on Jan. 10, 2011, when he was 50, and was ultimately diagnosed with Stage IIIC rectal cancer in June 2012. Berbecel claimed that Younis failed to refer him for colonoscopies, causing the rectal cancer to go undiagnosed until June 2012. Berbecel sued Younis, alleging that Younis failed to refer him for a colonoscopy, causing a delay in diagnosis, and that this failure constituted medical malpractice. Berbecel claimed that Younis failed to perform a digital rectal examination on March 8, 2010, but rather performed an “anal swipe.” He also claimed that Younis failed to recommend that he undergo a colonoscopy on either the March 8, 2010 visit or the Jan. 10, 2011 visit. He further claimed that Younis’ staff never mentioned a colonoscopy nor asked him about a colonoscopy prior to the diagnosis of rectal cancer in June 2012 and testified that, in fact, he never heard the term “colonoscopy” before June 2012. Thus, Berbecel alleged that if Younis or his staff had recommended a colonoscopy earlier, the rectal cancer would have been diagnosed 27 months earlier. Plaintiff’s counsel disputed Younis’ alleged documentation of Berbecel’s visits, noting that in places Younis’ written comments were indecipherable to people other than Younis and his staff. Counsel also contended that the alleged documentation was contradictory and that Younis created a false medical record by including information on a March 8, 2010 lab requisition slip, which Berbecel denied was created on that date. Thus, plaintiff’s counsel argued that Younis did not recommend that Berbecel undergo a colonoscopy on March 8, 2010, since the alleged “colonoscopy” referral was not legible in the medical records to persons other than Younis and that Younis did not recommend that Berbecel undergo a colonoscopy on Jan. 10, 2011, since Younis did not personally make a note of his recommendation in the records. Younis claimed that he did recommend that Berbecel undergo a colonoscopy on March 8, 2010, and again on Jan. 10, 2011. However, he claimed that Berbecel failed to follow his medical advice. Younis also alleged that it was his custom and practice to recommend colonoscopies for patients age 50 and older, and for patients approaching the age of 50. In addition, Younis’ medical assistants testified that it is their custom and practice to recommend colonoscopies and claimed that documentation indicated that a medical assistant asked Berbecel about a colonoscopy during the Jan. 10, 2011 visit. Defense counsel disputed the credibility of Berbecel, arguing that there were inconsistencies in Berbecel’s testimony. Specifically, defense counsel noted that Berbecel claimed he never heard the term “colonoscopy” before June 2012, despite being a Ph.D., having been married to a medical doctor, having lost his wife to a form of cancer many years earlier, and having admitted that he typically reads his health insurance benefits, which set forth routine cancer-screening tests, including colonoscopies starting at age 50. Defense counsel also contended that Berbecel was inconsistent as to whether he had any rectal bleeding or blood in his stool — which is sometimes an indication of colon problems — prior to July 2012. Specifically, defense counsel noted that Berbecel testified that although he had a four-year history of hemorrhoids, Berbecel denied having any rectal bleeding or blood in his stool prior to July 2012, but that this was contradicted by Berbecel’s medical records from multiple other health care providers. Counsel also noted that Berbecel testified that he went into the Mayo Clinic records and “updated” his questionnaire to indicate that he had blood in his stool after he initially submitted the questionnaire, but that Berbecel also claimed he did not have blood in his stool at this time. However, plaintiff’s counsel disputed the accuracy of the medical questionnaire documentation., Berbecel was diagnosed with Stage IIIC rectal cancer in June 2012. He subsequently underwent pre-surgery radiation therapy and radical surgery at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., followed by chemotherapy in Southern California. Berbecel claimed that as a result of the delay in diagnosis, it was medically probable that he would have a recurrence of cancer, which will cause his premature death. The plaintiff’s oncology expert also testified that Berbecel has about a 67 percent likelihood of cancer recurrence, which will result in death. Berbecel claimed that his future medical expenses would total $365,372 (present value) and that his future loss of earnings would range from $1,749,860 to $3,657,497 (present value), depending on the date of his cancer recurrence. Thus, plaintiff’s counsel asked the jury to award Berbecel in excess of $4 million in total damages. Defense counsel argued that Berbecel is not likely to have a recurrence of cancer. The defense’s oncology expert testified that based on Berbecel’s conditional survival, having survived cancer-free for more than 2.5 years, Berbecel is not likely to have a recurrence of cancer.