In November 2007, plaintiff Erik Morales was born with hemifacial macrosomia, a condition in which the lower half of one side of the face is underdeveloped and does not grow normally. He also suffered hearing loss along with cognitive and developmental delays. Erik allegedly developed the condition during a critical period of fetal growth, when his mother, Eulalia Lopez-Gomez, was pregnant with him and allegedly exposed to an elevated level of the pesticide Captan while she was working at Anacapa Berry Farms, a strawberry farm in the Oxnard area, between March and June of 2007. Lopez-Gomez, acting as Erik’s guardian, sued Well-Pict, a marketing and shipping company that sells strawberries grown by its contracted growers under the Well-Pict label and earns a commission on those sales. She also sued T T Miyasaka Inc., a strawberry grower in Northern California with no operations in Oxnard that had previously owned and held title to the farm where she worked during the relevant time period, but it sold that farm to another entity (not a named defendant) 10 years before the relevant time period. Lopez-Gomez also sued Soilfume Inc., a soil fumigation company that operated Anacapa Berry Farms, where she worked a side business during the relevant time period, and sued Ramco Enterprises, LP, the labor company that actually employed and trained her while she worked at Anacapa Berry Farms. In addition, she sued Westside Strawberry Farms Inc., which at one time was doing business as Anacapa Berry Farms; Anacapa Foods, LLC, a frozen food company; and Eclipse Berry Farms, LLC. Eclipse’s carrier denied coverage. Eclipse subsequently filed a motion for summary judgment, but it was dismissed for a nominal settlement before the hearing. Anacapa Foods also filed a motion for summary judgment, and it was also dismissed for a nominal settlement before the hearing. Thus, the four defendants remaining were Well-Pict, T T Miyasaka, Soilfume, and Ramco. However, Well-Pict lasted through the entire trial before settling with the plaintiff on the morning that one of its attorneys was scheduled to give his closing statement. Accordingly, the matter continued against T T Miyasaka, Soilfume, and Ramco only. Lopez-Gomez testified that tractors sprayed foul-smelling chemicals about 20 feet from workers two to three times a week and that this occurred while she was pregnant with Erik in the spring of 2007 at Anacapa Berry Farms, in the Oxnard area. She also testified that she had never received training on pesticide risks in the 16 years that she had been employed as a farmworker. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that no other workers would come forward to testify that they, too, had been sprayed with pesticides for fear of reprisal or deportation. However, counsel was able to present a last minute witness, who was terminated from his management position at a shipping facility near the farm last year. Plaintiff’s counsel argued that the defendants failed to provide Lopez-Gomez with adequate training on how to protect herself from pesticides during her employment by Ramco at the strawberry farm. Thus, counsel contended that Lopez-Gomez was sprayed directly with pesticides while she worked at Anacapa Berry Farms. Counsel also argued that Lopez-Gomez had been dermally exposed to harmful chemicals that had remained on the berry plants even after the Environmental Protection Agency’s re-entry intervals had lapsed. Thus, plaintiff’s counsel argued that Ramco had failed to adequately train its employees and warn pregnant females of the supposedly known risks of birth defects associated with exposure to agricultural chemicals. Counsel also argued that even if Lopez-Gomez had received the mandatory EPA Worker Protection Standard training, Ramco had failed to adequately ensure that the workers receiving the training all understood its significance. The plaintiff’s environmental exposure expert testified about how he has studied the effect of pesticides on children through several avenues, including residues left on food, fetal exposure, and the interaction of children with parents once they come home from their agricultural jobs. He also testified that he calculated that the pesticide exposure for Lopez-Gomez, by examining several sources of information, including records of the pesticides used at Anacapa Berry Farms on the days that Lopez-Gomez worked at the site off Etting Road, payroll records, previous research on the amount of pesticides left on the skin of strawberry harvesters, and a personal interview with Lopez-Gomez. He further explained that the research he examined was based on the exposure of harvesters four days after the chemicals had been applied. Thus, the expert opined that since Lopez-Gomez was working shortly after the spraying, based on the (scientific) literature he reviewed, the residue would still be in the field. The plaintiff’s occupational and environmental medicine expert testified that more than half a dozen studies dating from the mid-1970s showed a connection between pesticides and birth defects. The expert opined that parties responsible for ensuring the safety of Lopez-Gomez and other workers at Anacapa Berry Farms could have or should have known of the risk by 2007. Based on his review of testimony from Lopez-Gomez and 20 other workers, the expert concluded that Ramco Enterprises had provided inadequate training from a federal pesticide safety guide, which was developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and that the inadequate training was a breach of the standard of care in the industry and a violation of state and federal law. Defense counsel noted that on a list of chemicals maintained by the state of California under voter-approved Proposition 65, Captan has been linked to an increased risk of cancer, but not to birth defects. Counsel also argued that Lopez-Gomez was never sprayed directly with any pesticides and that there were a half-dozen safety checks in place that would have ensured that a worker being sprayed directly never could have occurred. Soilfume/Anacapa Berry Farms used a third-party application company to apply the agricultural chemicals, but the applicator was not a named defendant in the case. However, the owner of the application company testified that the applications only took place at night, that they never took place while anybody was present, and that his workers would halt applications if they ever saw cars approaching on the roads. Ramco’s counsel also presented testimony regarding how Ramco gives the Worker Protection Standard training to every field worker, every year, and the procedures it had in place to ensure that no field workers could avoid receiving the training., Erik was born with serious craniofacial birth defects, including macrostomia, hemifacial microsomia, and anisocoria (a condition characterized by an unequal size of the eyes’ pupils). He also suffers from hearing loss, and cognitive and developmental delays. Since Erik was born with a malformed head, jaw and ear, he has undergone repeated surgeries, finds it difficult to talk and eat, and has emotional and physical difficulties. At the time of trial, Erik was 9 years old and had already undergone five separate surgical procedures to reconstruct his face. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that Erik had been bullied at his school and suffered from emotional as a result. Counsel also argued that Erik would require a permanent caretaker or would be forced to reside in a group home with other developmentally disabled individuals. In addition, counsel argued that Erik would never be able to work in any kind of competitive environment. Thus, Erik’s mother sought recovery of damages for Erik’s past medical care, future medical care, pain and suffering, and his permanent disabilities. During closing arguments, plaintiff’s counsel requested that the jury award Erik $22 million against all of the remaining defendants as compensation for Erik’s personal , emotional harm, and permanent disabilities, plus punitive damages. The defense’s experts opined that even if the scenario alleged by Lopez-Gomez had occurred, none of the chemicals to which she was allegedly exposed would or could have caused her son’s birth defects. Not one of those chemicals listed birth defects on its corresponding EPA material safety data sheet. However, under a ruling from the court, the jury could not consider pesticide reports showing the type and amounts of pesticides used during the period Lopez-Gomez was working at the farm. Judge Kent Kellegrew deemed the reports unreliable after concluding they could have been corrupted in a computer system conversion by the county’s Agricultural Commissioner’s Office. One of the defense’s expert geneticists explained how the combination of Erik’s specific deformities, plus his developmental delay, was more likely to be caused by genetic factors and how plaintiff’s counsel had not performed the one test that would have conclusively ruled out those genetic factors. While it was not disputed that Erik would require future surgeries, defense counsel introduced evidence that Erik had incurred no costs for his past medical treatment since Medi-Cal paid for his five prior surgeries. Counsel also disputed the contention that Erik would be unable to find any work due to his developmental delays. The defense’s experts explained how the best indicator of future educational attainment is the education level attained by the parents and noted that neither of Erik’s parents had completed elementary school. Defense counsel also introduced evidence that while Erik had not always performed well at his old school, he transferred to a new school in late 2016 and that his performance had increased as a result. Defense counsel presented testimony about how the bullying claims were allegedly fabricated by plaintiff’s counsel for the purpose of litigation and that the principal at Erik’s old school had found no evidence that any bullying had ever occurred after an extensive investigation.