In 2004, plaintiff Myone Bollinger, a Los Angeles County sheriff’s deputy who worked as a bailiff in the Pasadena Courthouse, injured her lower back while attempting to subdue a mentally ill inmate. She claimed she continued to experience residual pain through 2006, but was able to continue working full-time as a bailiff, with some limitations, and noted that the position rarely involved the use of physical force. The Sheriff’s Department later informed Bollinger that she would be eligible for patrol training in August 2007. Bollinger requested an extension from performing any patrol duties, which she claimed was a reasonable accommodation for her physical disability, but the department denied the request. In August 2007, prior to starting her patrol training, Bollinger underwent an Agreed Medical Examination, which was performed by Dr. Steven Brourman, the agreed medical examiner in the worker’s compensation matter. Brourman claimed that Bollinger’s condition had become “significantly worse” and that she should “avoid heavy work, including patrol duties, bending, twisting, and torquing at the waist.” However, the Sheriff’s Department placed her on patrol duty in October 2007. Bollinger claimed that by January 2008, she became totally disabled from performing patrol duties, specifically due to a violent altercation in the field with a resisting suspect, and never returned to work. Bollinger sued her employer, the county of Los Angeles. She alleged that the defendant’s failure to postpone having her perform patrol duty constituted disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, and failure to engage in the interactive process. Bollinger contended that the county violated virtually all of its own policies, by never engaging in the requisite good faith interactive process, never asking her why she could not perform patrol duties, and never requesting her medical records or contacting her doctors. She claimed that the county ignored a letter from her treating doctor, who opined that she should stay in her court position, as well as ignored Brourman’s AME report that had been communicated to the Sheriff’s Department and that stated that “working in the court is preferable to field work in view of EMG findings.” Thus, Bollinger’s counsel contended that the county had no basis whatsoever to send Bollinger on patrol duties since no doctor medically cleared her to go on patrol. Counsel further contended that the county’s refusal and failure to comply with its obligation to engage in the interactive process forced her to go against her doctor’s orders and perform a job she was not physically able to perform. The county contended that it never received the August 2007 AME report from Brourman and, therefore, it did not have notice or knowledge of the report. Thus, it claimed that it was not aware of Bollinger’s restrictions. In addition, the county filed a cross-complaint against Brourman, claiming that his failure to formally serve the AME report caused Bollinger to not be accommodated. Brourman, in turn, filed a cross-complaint against GR Medical Management Inc., the billing company, claiming that it failed to serve the AME report. He also sued Tristar Risk Management, the third-party claims administrator; Laughlin Falbo Levy & Moresi LLP, the county’s workers’ compensation law firm; the Office of the County Counsel; and Rita Reyes-Schmitt, an attorney with the county’s workers’ compensation law firm. GR Medical contended that it did not receive Brourman’s report and that the county was aware of Brourman’s AME, but took no action to obtain the report. It further claimed that its contract with Brourman did not obligate it to send reports, which would have included the AME report., Bollinger claimed that as a result of a violent altercation in January 2008, in which she suffered a further injury to her lower back, she became totally disabled and retired from the Sheriff’s Department. She continues to treat for the injury conservatively. Bollinger claimed that her lower back condition has caused neuropathy to her lower extremities, restricting her day-to-day activities. She also claimed she suffers from anxiety and depression as a result of the ordeal. Thus, Bollinger claimed in excess of $1 million in damages for her total lost earnings, and $3 million in damages for her past and future pain and suffering. The county’s counsel contended that the claimed in the lawsuit were the same Bollinger was treating for in the workers’ compensation matter and, therefore, the county was entitled to an offset for what was already paid by workers’ compensation. Additionally, counsel contended that the county was entitled to an offset for the monies received in connection with Bollinger’s disability retirement through the county.