On Dec. 10, 2012, plaintiff David Tuli, 22, underwent surgery to replace a ventriculo-pleural shunt, which was previously placed to manage his hydrocephalus. Tuli was previously born prematurely and suffered an interventricular hemorrhage. As a result, he had a ventriculo-pleural shunt placed at birth and it was revised at eight years of age. Tuli was then followed at the Hypertonicity CCS Center — a California Children’s Services (CCS) approved Special Care Center (SCC) in Long Beach — with diagnoses that included cerebral palsy, hydrocephalus, gastroesophageal reflux disease, and seizure disorder. Thus, he had a history of mental retardation, cerebral palsy, and seizure disorder. In October 2012, Tuli’s shunt became infected and had to be externalized. As a result, Dr. Ramin Javahery performed a new shunt placement at Long Beach Memorial Medical Center, in Long Beach, on Dec. 10, 2012. However, a CT scan showed that the catheter had gone into the basal cisterns, and possibly into the midbrain, resulting in a hemorrhage in the midbrain. Tuli, through his guardian ad litem, Lori Sagale, sued Long Beach Memorial Medical Center and Javahery. The hospital was ultimately granted summary judgment. Thus, the matter continued against Javahery only. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that the standard of care required that Javahery use a ventriculoscope or a navigational device in the placement of the ventriculo-pleural shunt and that Javahery’s failure to do so constituted medical malpractice. Counsel also contended that had Javahery done so, he would not have caused an injury to Tuli. Javahery’s counsel contended that the complication suffered by Tuli, which resulted in brain damage, was an inherent risk of a shunt placement and that Tuli’s guardian ad litem consented to the procedure. In addition, Javahery’s counsel contended that the complication occurred in the absence of negligence., Tuli suffered a hemorrhage in the midbrain, resulting in brain damage. Thus, he sought recovery of general damages. Plaintiff’s counsel dismissed Tuli’s special damages claim, which was in the form of future medical expenses, as Tuli had already required maximum assistance with all of his activities of daily living and was completely dependent upon his caregivers prior to the alleged negligent care. As a result, Tuli did not require any additional nursing care at home after the surgery at issue.