On Nov. 17, 2008, plaintiff Wilfredo Amaya, 38, a hotel janitor, was riding his bicycle home from work, traveling on Stockton Street in San Francisco’s Chinatown district, when his right shoulder impacted the front door of a pickup truck that was being opened by Ben Li. Amaya did not completely fall off of his bicycle, but claimed immediate pain to his right shoulder. He also claimed he injured his right knee during the incident. Amaya sued Li, alleging that the defendant was negligent for opening the truck’s door when it was unsafe to do so. Throughout the litigation phase, Li argued comparative fault. However, on the first day of trial, he conceded liability., Amaya claimed immediate pain to her right, dominant shoulder after the accident. As a result, he was taken by ambulance to California Pacific Medical Center in San Francisco, where X-rays were taken, but no shoulder injury was found. He was subsequently given pain medication and dismissed from the hospital. Amaya claimed that he developed pain to his right knee 1.5 weeks later and could not attribute it to anything but the subject accident. However, he claimed that since he lacked English language skills, finances and health insurance, since he had only arrived at the United States from Honduras four months prior to the accident, he did not know where to seek follow-up medical assistance. As a result, he did not present for care of his alleged knee injury until 3.5 months later, when he was encouraged by his friend to return to the California Pacific Medical Center. Amaya claimed that at this point, he had pain to his right shoulder and right knee. Amaya was subsequently examined at the medical center and referred to San Francisco General Hospital, where he was seen by his treating internal medicine physician. The plaintiff’s treating expert internist testified at his deposition that there was a protrusion to Amaya’s right knee and that the X-ray showed effusion of the knee. However, the physician alleged that he could not specifically diagnose the injury at that time. As a result, Amaya was referred to another physician, an orthopedic surgeon with the San Francisco General Hospital. This physician and his staff found that Amaya suffered a grade I-plus tear of the lateral collateral ligament of his right knee, and subsequently treated Amaya for his shoulder and knee with physical therapy. Although his shoulder pain resolved after a few months, Amaya claimed that his knee pain remained. He alleged that as a result, he has been wearing a brace on his knee, which was provided to him at San Francisco General Hospital, since three months after the subject accident. Amaya also claimed that he still has daily pain and that though he initially treated with over-the-counter pain medicine, he does not anymore. Thus, Amaya claimed that although he took one day off of work for his , he now continues to work with pain to his knee. The plaintiff’s treating orthopedic surgeon testified that Amaya’s knee injury could, more likely than not, be related to the subject accident. The expert also opined that there was no need for the knee to strike the pickup door in order for Amaya to suffer a lateral collateral ligament tear, and that this injury could have been attributed to the valgus force applied to the knee from the side, like a twisting mechanism. Defense counsel argued that Amaya’s knee injury was not related to the subject accident.