Sorry for the delay and for the confusion as to whom I was referring.
On page 37 of APF's "Pathology Service Coding Handbook" for Jan. 2019, the definition of "neoplasm" is discussed. Two definitions are provided:
“any new and abnormal growth…of tissue in which the growth is
uncontrolled and progressive.” [Dorland’s Illustrated Medical Dictionary, 30th edition]
“an abnormal mass of tissue, the growth of which
exceeds and is uncoordinated with that of the normal tissues and persists in the same
excessive manner after cessation of the stimuli which evoked the change.” [Robbins, Cotran
and Kumar, Pathologic Basis of Disease, 3rd edition, pg. 214]
The key things here for "neoplasm" are the characteristics of "uncontrolled," "progressive," and "persists." Not all new growths are considered "neoplastic."
On page 52, in the section "Myths and Misconceptions in Pathology ICD Coding" is "Report normal tissue with a benign neoplasm code." "Pathologists often use the adjective 'benign' to mean 'normal'... So, there is a difference between "benign tissue" and "benign neoplastic tissue." If the pathologist gives no indication that the tissue is neoplastic, then a neoplasm code is not appropriate.
I am curious about what the microscopic says. The diagnosis is "Benign partially calcified fibrocartilagenous nodule adjacent to rib" which, to me, sounds like a disorder of the cartilage next to the rib, not a disorder of the bone itself (M89.9). In the absence of the microscopic, I would code this as a disorder of the cartilage, M94.8X8.