On Jan. 8, 2013, plaintiff Sohila Zarandy, 65, a licensed OB-GYN, presented to Ronald Reagan UCLA Medical Center, in Los Angeles, for a consultation with the department of allergy and clinical immunology to get a second opinion about the severe angioedema attacks — or recurrent attacks of severe swelling — he had been experiencing since October 2012. Three days later, a blood test result came back as abnormal and was concerning for lymphoproliferative disorders, such as lymphoma. In May 2016, Zarandy presented to the hematology/oncology department at the University of California, Irvine Medical Center, in Orange, and was diagnosed with marginal zone lymphoma, a group of slow growing B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma that is sometimes associated with chronic infectious/autoimmune conditions. Zarandy sued UCLA Medical Center; the owner and operator of the medical center, The Regents of the University of California; and a Board-certified allergist/immunologist, Dr. Marc Riedl. Zarandy alleged that the defendants failed to communicate to her the test results, causing a delay in treatment, and that this failure constituted medical malpractice. Riedl was ultimately dismissed from the case. Zarandy claimed that although a blood test result from Jan. 11, 2013, came back as abnormal and was concerning for lymphoproliferative disorders, such as lymphoma, the test results were not communicated to her. Plaintiff’s counsel also noted that there was no notification in the chart that Zarandy was ever informed of the test results. Defense counsel contended that Zarandy was informed of the test results, per the medical center’s custom and practice. Counsel also faulted Zarandy for not being more proactive in her own care and for not following up on the blood results, as Zarandy is a licensed physician herself., Zarandy was diagnosed with marginal zone lymphoma in May 2016. While she claimed the 3.5-year delay caused several unpleasant swelling attacks and hospitalizations, it was undisputed that Zarandy did not have any future complications or problems as a result of the delayed treatment. As such, the MICRA limits of $250,000 severely limited the value of the case. Zarandy attempted to assert a claim for lost income, but, according to defense counsel, the claim was relatively weak given Zarandy’s advanced age and continued ability to work despite the angioedema. Her husband, M.H. Naheedy, presented a derivative claim, seeking recovery for his loss of consortium.