On June 16, 2010, plaintiff Gregory Watson, 62, a maintenance worker for the city of Sacramento, underwent an ileocolostomy — the surgical formation of an artificial opening between the ileum and the colon — by Dr. Lynette Scherer, a trauma surgeon at UC Davis Medical Center in Sacramento. Prior to the ileocolostomy, Watson underwent an elective resection of rectal cancer, performed on June 8, 2010. The course of his treatment was complicated by an anastomotic leak on post-operative day five, followed by sepsis. As a result, he required multiple surgeries. During a procedure on June 14, 2010, significant portions of Watson’s bowel had to be removed, leaving him in discontinuity. As a result, Scherer took over management of Watson on June 15, 2010, and performed multiple surgeries, including the procedure on June 16, 2010, during which Scherer performed the ileocolostomy to connect Watson’s bowel. Three or four months later, a fistula was discovered in Watson’s bowel, resulting in the leakage of bile. Watson sued Scherer; the operator of UC Davis Medical Center, the Regents of the University of California; and several other treating physicians. Scherer was dismissed from the case based on a stipulation that she was acting in the course and scope of her employment with Regents. The other physicians were also ultimately let out of the case. Thus, the matter went to trial against Regents only. Watson’s counsel argued that the ileocolostomy was improperly performed, causing it to fail. Counsel contended that as a result, Watson developed chronic abdominal fistulas, requiring multiple surgeries that left him permanently relying on a fistula bag on his abdomen to collect bile. Thus, Watson’s counsel argued that the negligent surgery constituted medical malpractice. Defense counsel contended that the treatment rendered to Watson was lifesaving and that the decision to perform the ileocolostomy was the best option for him, even in retrospect, as it never failed. Counsel also contended that Watson’s current were a result of his treatment with an open abdomen surgery, which was a surgical requirement, and that the fistulas and complications occurred from that surgery, and not from a failed ileocolostomy., After the ileocolostomy, Watson remained in the hospital for four months. After his discharge he developed chronic abdominal fistulas that required ongoing management, including operative treatment, an ongoing use of fistula bags to collect bile, and the use of bandages to his abdomen for chronic abscesses. Watson alleged that prior to the ileocolostomy, and prior to the resection on June 8, 2010, he was employed as a maintenance worker with the city of Sacramento. However, he claimed that he is now permanently disabled and has not returned to work. Watson claimed he is permanently reliant on a fistula bag on his abdomen to collect bile and has a permanent colostomy. He also alleged that he requires ongoing treatment for his . Thus, Watson sought recovery of $700,000 in special damages for his loss of income, attendant care, and loss of household services. He also sought recovery of damages for his pain and suffering. His wife, Judy Watson, sought recovery for her loss of consortium.