In June 2010, claimant Reynaldo Villo, 52, a newspaper circulation manager, presented to Kaiser Ophthalmologists to treat an inflammation in his right eye that had developed that summer and was diagnosed with the inflammatory disease endogenous endophthalmitis. The physicians at Kaiser Ophthalmology initially believed the manifestation to be noninfectious and prescribed Prednisone, an anti- inflammatory. However, during his five office visits, it was determined that Villo had contracted Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus Aureus,a type of infectious staph bacteria that is resistant to certain antibiotics. Villo claimed that the endogenous endophthalmitis was the first manifestation of the staph infection and that the physicians at Kaiser Ophthalmologist treated the inflammatory condition without addressing the underlying MRSA infection that was causing the inflammation. He claimed that as a result, he permanently lost the vision in his right eye. Villo proceeded to arbitration against the operator of Kaiser Ophthalmologists, Kaiser Foundation Hospitals. He alleged that the defendant’s physicians negligently treated his condition and that this negligence constituted medical malpractice. Claimant’s counsel contended that the Kaiser physicians should have “tapped and injected” the eye when they did not know what was causing Villo’s rapid loss of vision in June 2010, and that the “injection” should have been with the antibiotic vancomycin. Both parties’ retina-vitreous specialists stated that Prednisone should not be prescribed without an antibiotic in order to treat infections that could be causing the inflammation. Thus, claimant’s counsel contended that if the prescribing physician had dispensed an antibiotic when prescribing Prednisone on June 14, 2010, Villo’s viable eyesight could have been saved. Respondent’s counsel contended that that “tapping and injecting” has inherent risks and was not necessary because Villo’s eye had systemic indications that it “was getting better,” despite the loss of vision. Counsel also disputed the prescription date and contended that the Prednisone was actually given on June 17, 2010. Thus, the respondents’ retina-vitreous specialist opined that by the time the Prednisone was prescribed, Villo’s vision was lost and he would not have recovered it anyway had the antibiotic been administered. However, claimant’s counsel admitted Villa’s prescribed bottle of Prednisone into evidence, which allegedly showed a prescription date of June 14, 2010., Villo permanently lost vision in his right eye. He spent a month in the hospital, receiving five weeks of antibiotic courses, but other manifestations of the MRSA bacteria appeared in his kidneys and knee. Villo also nearly lost vision in his left eye, when he initially experienced floaters, and treated the condition with a vancomycin injection for the left eye. Villo, who works for a Filipino newspaper, used to work excessive overtime hours, but currently does not work as much. He also claimed he suffers constant anxiety about losing sight in the left eye. As such, he has taken self-imposed restrictions, such as not lifting more than 25 pounds, so he does not overexert himself. Respondent’s counsel contended that Villo requested $250,000 in general damages and $1 million in economic damages, a majority of which were for lost earnings.