On March 8, 2008, plaintiff Ryan Hotz, 24, a film editor, went to the emergency room at Providence Holy Cross Medical Center where he obtained a CT scan that demonstrated a skull fracture and a large epidural bleed. Hotz had sustained the injury to his head during a fight at Dimples Bar in Burbank, when he was hit in the head with a bottle. He did to seek immediate medical assistance, and one week after his injury, was still suffering from nausea and periodic headaches. As a result, he presented to Providence Holy Cross Medical Center, where he was seen in consultation by a neurosurgeon, Dr. Mark Liker, who reviewed the CT scan and performed a neurologic exam. Liker claimed that because the hematoma appeared stable and was no longer bleeding, he discharged the patient to return in one week for a follow-up CT scan. At time of discharge, Liker claimed Hotz exhibited no neurologic deficits. Hotz eventually return for a follow-up exam and experienced a large re-bleed 10 days later. Hotz sued Liker and Providence Holy Cross Medical Center. He alleged that Liker and the hospital failed to properly treat his condition and that this failure constituted medical malpractice. Hotz’s expert neurosurgeon, who was the former Chief of the Division of Neurosurgery at UCLA, opined that any patient who presents with a large epidural hematoma should either have the hematoma drained or, at the very least, be hospitalized for several days to undergo serial CT exams to make certain that the hematoma is not expanding to a point where it would put undue pressure on the brain. The expert further testified that he was in total disagreement with Liker’s decision to release Hotz from the emergency room without having performed a follow-up CT scan or having undertaken surgical drainage of the epidural bleed. Defense counsel argued that there was no malpractice involved in the decision to discharge Hotz home and that the plaintiff was negligent for failing to follow instructions for a follow-up CT Scan. The defense’s expert neurosurgeon, who was from the University of San Diego, and expert neuroradiologist testified that the CT scan reviewed by Liker on March 8, 2008, demonstrated an old, non-expanding epidural hematoma that did not require immediate evacuation because the patient demonstrated no focal neurologic signs or symptoms. The defense’s experts opined that one would not expect this type of hematoma to rebleed, assuming the patient followed normal precautions against re his head. Moreover, defense counsel contended that to have operated on the patient would, by itself, create additional risks of a rebleed or other complications. Hotz could not recall what he did during the intervening period from March 8, 2008, to March 20, 2008, but it was the opinion of the defense witnesses that he probably reinjured his head in some manner, resulting in a new bleed. They claimed that it was this second bleed that caused significant compression of the plaintiff’s brain and brain stem, resulting in whatever neurologic deficits he now exhibits., Hotz suffered a large epidural rebleed, causing significant compression on his brain and brain stem, and resulting in neurologic deficits. Hotz claimed that his brain injury left him with significant weakness on his right side, significant memory loss and an impaired ability to make executive decisions that would be necessary for him to return to work. Thus, he asked the jury to award damages in the amounts of $500,000 for his past and future pain and suffering, $500,000 for his future care and medical costs, and $1.5 million for his lost earnings. Defense counsel contended that Hotz had anger management issues and poor decision making well before he became involved in the bar fight that resulted in his head injury. Thus, counsel argued that there was no qualified medical evidence that these conditions were significantly changed following the bar fight that caused his epidural hematoma.