The court held that the original suit dismissal against Mayo be reversed because the courts believe that the evidence Elliot Kaplan provided and the damages he suffered as a result of the unnecessary Whipple procedure performed by Mayo Clinic's Dr. Nagorney was sufficient enough. In addition, Dr. Nagorney admitted at trial that Mr. Kaplan would indeed not have needed the Whipple procedure if an intraoperative biopsy was performed prior to completing the procedure. Following Mr. Kaplan's complaint of severe abdominal pain, he was taken to a local hospital where his family physician ordered a CT scan and needle biopsy of his pancreas. The results were consistent with pancreatic cancer and he was referred to Dr. Nagorney for further examination. Dr. Nagorney agreed to see the patient and examined the biopsy slides that were obtained from Mr. Kaplan's family physician…show more content… Burgart. Dr. Burgart provided a written diagnosis that was in agreement with Mr. Kaplan's family physician's diagnosis of pancreatic cancer. Dr. Nagorney met with Mr. Kaplan and his wife and recommended that a Whipple procedure take place due to the fact that his diagnosis was both deadly and aggressive. Mr. Kaplan responded by asking Dr. Nagorney whether he was sure of the diagnosis and Dr. Nagorney stated that he had no doubt that he had cancer. With that being said, Mr. Kaplan agreed to proceed with the surgery. Prior to surgery, Mr. Kaplan claimed that Dr. Nagorney promised to perform an intraoperative biopsy of the pancreatic tissue before proceeding with the Whipple procedure to ensure that he indeed did have cancer, and if the biopsy was negative, Dr. Nagorney would abandon the procedure and close Mr. Kaplan up. However,
