On Jan. 29, 2013, plaintiff Miguel Macias, a man in his 40s on workers’ compensation leave, underwent an MRI as part of an unrelated workers’ compensation claim. Prior to undergoing the MRI, Dr. Tereasa Simonson at Norcal Imaging-Concord, in Concord, performed a pre-screening X-ray and cleared Macias to proceed with the MRI. However, Macias had a bullet in his right hip/buttock for over 20 years, and he claimed the MRI caused the bullet to migrate, causing nerve damage to his groin, hip, and leg. Macias sued the operator of Norcal Imaging-Concord, Beverly Radiology Medical Group (which was initially erroneously sued as “Norcal Imaging”). Macias alleged that Beverly Radiology was negligent in its interpretation of the pre-screening X-ray and its decision to perform the MRI. He also alleged that Beverly Radiology failed to obtained his informed consent and that its negligence constituted medical malpractice. Plaintiff’s counsel argued that because the bullet was in close proximity to the lateral femoral cutaneous nerve, Simonson was negligent in his review of the pre-screening X-ray and in clearing Macias to proceed with the MRI. Counsel further argued that Macias was not provided with sufficient information regarding the risks of and alternatives to the MRI. The plaintiff’s emergency medicine expert opined that a patient with a bullet in his or her body should not undergo an MRI except in emergent circumstances. Defense counsel contended that Simonson is a board certified radiologist with an additional board certification in neuroradiology and over 15 years working with veterans, providing radiology services through the VA Hospital. Thus, counsel argued that Simonson reviewed Macias’ pre-screening X-ray and properly determined that based on the bullet’s location, likely composition, and length of time in the body, it was not in a dangerous location to proceed with the MRI. The defense’s radiology expert determined that Simonson’s conclusion was appropriate and within the standard of care., Macias claimed that later in the evening, after undergoing the MRI, he began to suffer nerve pain in his right groin, hip and leg, which became worse over time. He subsequently had the bullet removed, but he claimed he still did not experience much relief. Macias alleged that prior to the bullet being removed, his primary pain was in the groin/testicle region, but that following the bullet removal, he has new pain at the two, separate incision sites. Macias’ prior condition was deemed permanent and stationary, and his work restrictions did not change much following the MRI and subsequent bullet removal. He also reported no improvement, even after years of treatment for all , both pre-existing and following the bullet removal. Thus, Macias sought recovery for his medical costs and pain and suffering. His wife, Irene Macias, presented a derivative claim, seeking recovery for her loss of consortium. Defense counsel noted that Macias’ complaints of nerve pain started later in the evening, long after the MRI and subsequent chiropractic treatment had been completed. Thus, counsel argued that Macias’ complaints were not due the MRI. In addition, the defense’s orthopedic surgery expert opined that Macias’ complaints were inconsistent and unrelated to any alleged minimal movement of the bullet because the nerve was not near the bullet.