On Sept. 2, 2009, plaintiff Jose Topete, 50, a former business taxes specialist for the state of California, Board of Equalization, began undergoing electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) to treat his history of depression. A psychologist previously diagnosed Topete with a major depressive disorder on Oct. 1, 2007. As a result, Topete was prescribed antidepressant medication and was seen by his primary care physician. Topete was also taking pain medications since 2004 due to his history of chronic pain from work-related to his knees and lower back. In April 2008, he was referred to a psychiatrist, who also felt that Topete had a major depressive disorder. Various combinations of psychiatric medications, in conjunction with psychotherapy, were subsequently tried, but Topete seemed to be treatment resistant. Topete then participated in an intensive, partial hospitalization program from July 2008 through September 2008. He initially improved, but shortly after being discharged, he threatened suicide. As a result, he kept as an inpatient at a psychiatric hospital from Sept. 15, 2008 through Sept. 22, 2008. Topete then participated in another intensive, partial hospitalization program from Sept. 22, 2008 through Oct. 9, 2008. At the end of the second program, Topete returned to the care of his psychiatrist and psychologist, and participated in group therapy. However, he remained depressed. At that point ECT treatment was considered. Topete switched psychiatrists on Jan. 7, 2009, and began receiving outpatient psychiatric care from Dr. Eugene Fealk until August 2009. Although Fealk managed Topete’s depression with various psychiatric medications, Topete’s condition worsened. As a result, Fealk recommended that Topete undergo ECT and subsequently referred him to Dr. Theodore Goodman and Dr. Robert Blanco at the Sutter Center for Psychiatry. Topete ultimately underwent 23 ECT treatments with Goodman and Blanco at the Sutter Center for Psychiatry between Sept. 2, 2009 and Dec. 23, 2009. However, Topete claimed that he suffered severe memory loss as a result of the ECT treatments and/or the overuse of psychotropic medications. Topete sued Fealk; Goodman; Blanco; a neurologist, Dr. James Stoody; a psychiatrist, Dr. Charles Panadero; and the operator of Sutter Center for Psychiatry, Sutter Health Sacramento Sierra Region (which was initially erroneously sued as “Sutter Health”). Topete alleged that the defendants were negligent in the treatment of his depression and that their negligence constituted medical malpractice. Stoody and Panadero were both dismissed prior to trial, and Sutter Health Sacramento Sierra Region was dismissed from the case after it was granted a motion for summary judgment. Thus, the matter continued against Goodman, Blanco, and Fealk. Plaintiff’s counsel argued that Fealk, Goodman and Blanco were negligent for failing to discontinue all of Topete’s medications, as they failed to identify whether the various medications that Topete was on for depression and other health problems were the true source of his depression. Specifically, counsel contended that Fealk should have discontinued all Topete’s medications before referring him for ECT and that Goodman and Blanco should have discontinued Topete’s medications before starting the ECT sessions. Plaintiff’s counsel also argued that since Topete’s medications were the source of his problems, ECT was not indicated and that if the physicians had discontinued all of Topete’s medications, then Topete’s depression would have resolved. Counsel further argued that Fealk should have discussed the risks of ECT, including memory loss, with Topete. In addition, plaintiff’s counsel argued that there were several aspects of the administration of ECT that were inappropriate and that the number of ECT sessions was excessive. Defense counsel contended that all care administered to Topete was appropriate. Counsel noted that Topete had been diagnosed with depression on Oct. 1, 2007, and that Topete had been taking pain medications for years with no adverse reaction or depression. Fealk, Goodman and Blanco also claimed that they obtained proper informed consent before Topete underwent ECT. Fealk claimed that he was a not specialist in ECT, which was why he referred Topete to Goodman and Blanco, who were ECT specialists. Goodman and Blanco claimed that the ECT sessions did not explain Topete’s alleged memory loss. Specifically, they claimed that neuropsychiatric testing and imaging studies, including multiple MRIs of the brain and brain positron emission tomography (PET) scans, were performed both before and after the ECT sessions and evaluated by five neurologists who saw Topete over the course of time, but that the tests and studies showed no damage and the five neurologists could not find any evidence to connect Topete’s memory loss to the ECT sessions., Topete claimed that he suffers from near complete memory loss of events prior to the ECT sessions. He first complained of complete retroactive amnesia on Jan. 14, 2010, and for everything that pre-dated that day. Topete is now cared for at home and is on disability, as he can no longer be employed in his position. Topete’s wife, Margaret Topete, sought recovery for her loss of consortium. Thus, the Topetes sought recovery of $2.2 million in total damages. Defense counsel produced records allegedly showing that Mr. Topete had severe memory loss complaints before the ECT. Thus, defense counsel argued that Mr. Topete’s alleged memory loss was a function of his depression. However, counsel noted that Mr. Topete still drove his children to school, even though Mr. Topete claimed that he had complete retroactive amnesia of events prior to January 2010.