In 2011, plaintiff Christine Kay was brought to the University of California San Diego Medical Center, in San Diego, for treatment, which included surgery to repair fractures of her spine and sacrum due to from an automobile accident in Mexico. As a prophylactic measure to prevent potential blood clots from traveling to Kay’s lungs and causing a pulmonary embolism, an interventional radiologist, Dr. Benjamin Drinkwine, placed an inferior vena cava (IVC) filter in Kay’s inferior vena cava. Drinkwine then recommended that, if the IVC filter was no longer needed after 60 to 90 days, Kay should be referred back to interventional radiology at the University of California San Diego Medical Center to see about having it removed. Kay did not return to interventional radiology. In 2016, Kay learned the legs, or struts, of the IVC filter had perforated through the wall of the inferior vena cava, allegedly imperiling her health and safety. Kay sued Drinkwine; the operator of the University of California San Diego Medical Center, the Regents of the University of California; the University of California San Diego Medical Group; an orthopedic physician who was involved in Kay’s care at the medical center, Dr. Richard Allen; a primary care physician at Point Loma Convalescent Hospital who was involved in Kay’s care, Dr. Noli Cava; and the operator of Point Loma Convalescent Hospital, Point Loma Rehabilitation Center LLC. Kay alleged that the defendants failed to properly inform her about the IVC filter and need to return to interventional radiology. She also alleged that the defendants’ failures constituted medical malpractice. Kay also sued the manufacturers of the IVC filter, including Medical Engineering and Development Institute Inc., Cook Denmark Holding APS, Cook Denmark International APS, Cook Group Europe APS, Cook Group Inc., Cook Inc., Cook Medical Inc., Cook Medical LLC, Cook Medical Technologies, Cook Nederland BV and William Cook Europe ApS. However, the manufacturers were dismissed from the case. As to the remaining medical defendants, Drinkwine was removed from the case. In addition, Cava was removed from the case when he settled with Kay at the time of trial. However, Cava’s name remained on the jury verdict form for apportionment of fault. Thus, the matter continued against the Regents of the University of California, Allen and Point Loma Rehabilitation Center. Kay claimed that because of the severe she sustained in the 2011 motor vehicle accident, she did not know or understand that an IVC filter had been placed in her or that she was to return to interventional radiology at the University of California San Diego Medical Center in 60 to 90 days to see about having it removed. She also claimed that she did not learn that she had an IVC filter for several years and that by the time she learned about it in 2016, the legs of the IVC filter had perforated through the wall of the inferior vena cava. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that each of the defendants had knowledge of the existence of the IVC filter and that each defendant had an obligation to inform Kay of that fact and the need to return to interventional radiology in 60 to 90 days to see about having it removed. Thus, counsel argued that the defendants breached their duty to inform Kay. The Regents of the University of California’s counsel contended that Kay’s transfer discharge papers provided to Point Loma Rehabilitation Center indicated that Kay should return to interventional radiology to have the IVC filter removed and that the indication in the discharge papers fulfilled its responsibility to inform Kay of the IVC filter and the need to have it removed. Allen claimed that it was not his responsibility to provide Kay with notice of the IVC filter since it was out of his scope as an orthopedist. Point Loma Rehabilitation Center’s counsel contended that it was the University of California San Diego Medical Center’s responsibility to schedule Kay to return to the medical center’s interventional radiology department to have the IVC filter removed., Kay claimed that she did not know about the IVC filter and that by the time she learned about it, the legs of the IVC filter had perforated through the wall of her inferior vena cava. She alleged that as a result, she believed that the IVC filter could not be removed without serious risk of harm. She also alleged that although she never experienced any pain or discomfort from the IVC filter, upon learning of it in 2016, she suffered significant emotional distress as a result of worrying about whether the filter would break or migrate. The parties stipulated that if the jury were to award damages, Kay’s past and future economic damages would total $25,000. Kay also sought recovery of an unspecified amount of non-economic damages for her emotional pain and suffering. Defense counsel argued that the IVC filter presented no harm to Kay and that the filter could be easily removed with little risk of injury.