On Oct. 19, 2012, plaintiff Nadine Froesch, 49, underwent a left piriformis release surgery for the relief of severe and debilitating pain in her left buttocks from pressure on the sciatic nerve area. The procedure was performed by Dr. Isreal Chambi, a neurosurgeon. That same day, Froesch also underwent decompression surgery on the left peroneal nerve for the relief of pain radiating into her left residual limb. Prior to the surgeries, Froesch became a left-sided, below-the-knee amputee due to an automobile accident with a drunken driver when she was 20 years old. Froesch later consulted with Chambi in 1999 due to complaints of severe pain in the right buttocks area that was caused by an impingement on the sciatic nerve by the piriformis muscle in the buttock, a condition known as “piriformis syndrome.” To relieve Froesch’s pain, Chambi performed right piriformis release surgery, where the piriformis muscle is reduced in size by cutting the muscle away from the area of the impingement on the sciatic nerve. The surgery was ultimately performed without complications, and Froesch’s right buttocks pain promptly resolved. However, in 2012, Froesch again experienced the same piriformis syndrome, but this time in her left buttocks area. As a result, she returned to Chambi for a consultation regarding her left buttocks pain on Aug. 28, 2012. During the consultation, surgery was discussed. However, after the subject surgeries on Oct. 19, 2012, Froesch claimed that her pain persisted. Froesch sued Chambi and the OC Multispecialty Surgery Center. While the surgery center was named in the complaint, it was never served. Thus, the surgery center was never a defendant in the action. Froesch claimed the left piriformis release procedure was ineffective and that Chambi was negligent, as her pain persisted post-surgery and she had to undergo a repeat of the left piriformis release surgery at UCLA a year later. She also claimed that she never consented to the second procedure and that Chambi committed medical battery by performing the left peroneal nerve decompression without her consent. In addition, Froesch claimed that Chambi committed fraud by deceiving her and concealing his intent to perform the left peroneal nerve decompression for the purpose of monetary gain. Froesch testified that during the consultation on Aug. 28, 2012, the visit dealt solely with her having another piriformis release procedure, like the one performed in 1999, but on the left side, and that Chambi did not discuss a peroneal nerve decompression procedure, which involved a small incision on her left residual limb. She also testified that there was no subsequent pre-operative office visit, or pre-op examination, to clear her for the two operative procedures and that she never consented to the second procedure or signed a consent listing both procedures. Plaintiff’s counsel introduced a pre-op note signed by Chambi and dated Oct. 18, 2012, which noted the intended performance of the second procedure, the peroneal nerve decompression. However, Froesch claimed that Chambi had not examined her on Oct. 18, 2012, and that the note was fabricated, as it contained factual errors that referenced tests and nerve conduction studies performed on her “left foot,” when in fact she had no left foot or left lower leg. The report also noted nerve responses and pulses in Froesch’s non-existent left foot on Oct. 18, 2012, and failed to mention that Froesch was a below-the-left-knee amputee, utilizing an artificial left, lower leg and foot. However, plaintiff’s counsel contended that when later copies of Chambi’s records were requested, his records contained a different pre-op examination of Froesch, again allegedly performed in his offices on Oct. 18, 2012, and that this second report contained major changes from the first, including that Froesch was a below-the-knee amputee and editing out all references to Chambi having conducted and obtained medically impossible nerve responses, pain complaints, pulses, and dorsiflexion of her left foot, all of which were claimed specifically in the original Oct. 18, 2012 pre-op exam report. In regard to the performance of the peroneal nerve decompression, Froesch testified that upon awakening in the recovery room, she was horrified and shocked to discover that, in addition to an incision on her left buttocks, Chambi had made an incision in the below-the-knee portion of her left residual leg. Froesch claimed that she was stunned and hysterical, repeatedly exclaiming to the nurse, “Why did he cut my leg? Why did he cut my leg?” Plaintiff’s counsel noted that the surgical nurse testified that she had responded to Froesch that the incision was made at the place on her left limb that had been marked by Chambi prior to surgery and that Froesch had consented. However, both Froesch and her sister, who accompanied her on the day of surgery, testified that when Chambi returned to the surgery center, he immediately began to apologize for not discussing the additional procedure, which required an incision below the left knee. Froesch explained that her dismay resulted from the fact that she had just completed approximately two years of extensive and painful reconstruction surgery on her left residual limb, a surgery known as the “Ertl procedure,” by her treating orthopedic surgeon in order to prepare her residual limb for a permanent, custom-fitted prosthesis that was being fabricated at the time. In addition, Froesch contended that Chambi had negligently performed the surgical procedures. She claimed that she had previously informed Chambi that she no longer had a left peroneal nerve at the location on her residual limb, as her treating orthopedic surgeon had surgically removed it during the reconstructive surgeries so that the new prosthesis could be worn without nerve pain in the area. The plaintiff’s treating neurosurgery expert also testified that Froesch had no sensation in the area enervated by the peroneal nerve. However, plaintiff’s counsel noted that Chambi’s report on Aug. 28, 2012, thoroughly documented a positive Tinel’s sign in the peroneal nerve below the knee, establishing that there was peroneal nerve irritation, which needed surgical attention. Thus, Froesch claimed that Chambi was negligent for not removing the piriformis muscle to relieve the entrapped sciatic nerve. Plaintiff’s counsel noted that Chambi’s operative report on Oct. 19, 2012, stated that he had resected 85 percent of Froesch’s piriformis muscle and thereby relieved its pressure on the sciatic nerve. However, Froesch claimed her left buttocks pain persisted post-surgery and did not improve as it had from her 1999 surgery on her right side. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that Froesch was eventually re-evaluated at UCLA in August 2013, during which diagnostic examinations and radiological studies confirmed that Froesch still had left piriformis syndrome. As a result, a repeat left piriformis release surgery was performed by Froesch’s treating neurosurgeon at UCLA on Dec. 19, 2013. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that it was confirmed during the December 2013 procedure that Froesch’s left piriformis muscle was not only still entrapping (compressing) the sciatic nerve, but it was “pristine,” totally intact, and with no evidence of having ever been surgically touched, much less 85 percent “resected” or “reduced to scar tissue,” as Chambi claimed in his Oct. 19, 2012 operative report. Chambi testified that the peroneal nerve decompression surgery was discussed with Froesch on Aug. 28, 2012, during his initial consultation with her, and he presented his consultation note for that date, which discussed both procedures. Chambi also presented his chart diagrams, indicating Froesch’s pain radiating from the area of the left buttocks to the area of the left residual limb. He also testified that on Oct. 19, 2012, the morning of the surgery, he performed a pre-op exam on Froesch and that he had fully discussed the peroneal nerve decompression procedure with Froesch, and that Froesch consented. To support his testimony, Chambi presented a copy of the surgical center’s informed consent form, which was signed by Froesch on Oct. 19, 2012, and which identified both surgical procedures to be performed on that date. However, Chambi admitted that there had not been a pre-op examination or office visit on Oct. 18, 2012. Chambi testified that references to Froesch’s left foot in the chart note dated Oct. 18, 2012 were errors and were “an obvious mistake,” in that he knew Froesch was a left-sided, below-the-knee amputee because he had performed the earlier surgery in 1999, and that the chart note dated Oct. 18, 2012 was subsequently amended to correct the errors. In response, Froesch testified that she did not see or talk to Chambi before she was placed under general anesthesia at about 7:30 a.m. on Oct. 19, 2012. She also denied signing the surgery center’s surgical consent form for the peroneal nerve decompression. Thus, she claimed that she did not give consent to undergo the peroneal nerve decompression. However, defense counsel noted that Froesch did admit that the signature on the document entered into evidence was hers and that both surgical nurses and the anesthesiologist who all saw Froesch prior to the surgery testified that Froesch was aware of, and consented to, the peroneal nerve decompression surgery. In regard to Froesch’s claims regarding the performance of the surgeries, defense counsel contended that while the surgical nurse did explain to Froesch about the incision made to her leg, the nurse testified that she was with Froesch when Chambi returned to the surgery center and that she did not hear Chambi make any such statement or apology regarding “cutting” into Froesch’s left residual limb. Instead, the surgical nurse claimed that Chambi had assured Froesch that he did not cut her peroneal nerve, but had made a small incision to release the scar tissue in the area that was impinging on the nerve. In regard to the piriformis release surgery, defense counsel offered comparisons of Froesch’s pre- and post-operative MRI images of the piriformis muscle, and argued that the MRIs demonstrated a reduction in size of the piriformis muscle subsequent to the piriformis release performed by Chambi on Oct. 19, 2012. The defense’s medical experts also opined that the MRI evidence showed that a substantial portion of the piriformis muscle had been removed by Chambi because it was much smaller than the one on the contra lateral side. Thus, defense counsel argued that the only way for the muscle to appear smaller on the MRI was for Chambi’s surgery to have been undertaken properly. Defense counsel also noted that the plaintiff’s treating neurosurgeon and expert had no explanation for the smaller appearance., Froesch contended that her left buttocks pain persisted after the surgeries performed by Chambi and did not improve as it had from her 1999 surgery on her right side. As a result, she was re-evaluated at UCLA in August 2013, during which diagnostic examinations and radiological studies confirmed that Froesch still had left piriformis syndrome. As a result, a repeat left piriformis release surgery was performed by Froesch’s treating neurosurgeon at UCLA on Dec. 19, 2013. During the procedure, the plaintiff’s treating neurosurgeon removed 90 to 95 percent of Froesch’s allegedly fully intact piriformis muscle and thereupon decompressed the sciatic nerve. Froesch claimed that after the repeat left piriformis procedure that was performed by her treating neurosurgeon, she had prompt and permanent post-surgical relief of her left piriformis buttock nerve pain. However, she claimed that the prior procedure performed by Chambi that involved a small lateral incision on her residual limb had undermined her long recovery from the prior reconstructive surgeries and forced her to undergo multiple additional surgeries to prepare her residual limb for the prosthesis fittings. Defense counsel presented excerpts from Froesch’s deposition from May 2013, seven months after Chambi’s surgery, in which Froesch testified that she continued to have excruciating pain in her left lower limb and that she needed two crutches to walk, and could not wear her prosthesis. Defense counsel also noted that Froesch testified that the severity of the pain at this time, along with her inability to wear her prosthesis, prevented her from being a functional amputee and affected her activities of daily living such as doing laundry, shopping, and pushing a grocery cart. However, defense counsel presented a surveillance video that was taken over a six-hour period on May 18, 2013, which showed Froesch walking unaided with her prosthesis, carrying two bags of trash, one in each hand, and walking up the front steps to her house. The video also showed Froesch walking unaided in her prosthesis while carrying a desktop computer to her truck and loading the computer into the truck. It further showed Froesch walking in her prosthesis with her child and lifting the child into the truck, as well as walking in her prosthesis and pushing a shopping cart with her child into and around a box store and making purchases. In addition, the video showed Froesch attending a children’s gymnastic event, walking around the activity area unaided in her prosthesis and taking photos, and thereafter stepping over a wide barrier in the activity area when returning to the spectator’s bench.