On April 27, 2012, plaintiff Paul Kalsman, a retired 77 year old, was walking with his wife on a sidewalk along Clark Street, in Los Angeles. While attempting to walk over to his parked car, Kalsman tripped and fell, striking his face against the sidewalk. He sustained a minor laceration across the bridge of his nose and an alleged brain injury. Kalsman sued the maintainer of the sidewalk, the city of Los Angeles. Kalsman claimed that right foot became caught on a tree well cover, which was raised 2 inches off of the ground due to root growth, and that this caused his fall. He alleged that the tree well was considered city property and that the raised tree well cover constituted a dangerous condition of public property. The plaintiff’s expert arborist estimated that the lifted cover would have existed long enough for the city to have constructive notice. In addition, the plaintiff’s safety expert opined that the shading from the tree caused poor visibility and contributed to the accident. The city’s counsel conceded that the city held control over the Clark Street sidewalk, but denied the alleged raised cover considered a dangerous condition. Counsel contended that the city had no notice of the alleged condition and that Kalsman could not prove the city was responsible for the accident or his . The defense’s agriculture and engineering expert disputed the plaintiff’s expert arborist’s opinion, testifying that there was no way to measure how long the lifted cover existed before the city allegedly should have had constructive notice. She also opined that the alleged shading from the tree was impossible given the time of day when the accident occurred., Kalsman was driven by his wife to nearby Providence Tarzana Medical Center, in Tarzana, where Kalsman was treated for a facial laceration across the bridge of his nose and released that same day. Three days later, on April 30, 2012, Kalsman returned to the hospital with complaints of severe headaches and slurred speech. He was subsequently diagnosed with a subdural hematoma and hospitalized for five days for observation. Before his release, Kalsman was prescribed morphine and an anticonvulsant–drugs that prevent or reduce the severity and frequency of seizures. He was later admitted to the hospital once more with complaints of dizziness, nausea, vomiting and dehydration. He subsequently remained hospitalized until May 13, 2012. Kalsman claimed that since the accident, he suffers from residual neurological deficits, including memory problems and balance issues. He also claimed that he is unable to drive and travel due to his condition. In addition, he claimed that he will require long-term care. Kalsman subsequently blames his traumatic brain injury and present condition on his fall. Thus, Kalsman sought recovery of $2 million in non-economic damages and $1.5 million in expenses related to an estimated life care plan. Defense counsel did not dispute Kalsman’s traumatic brain injury, but contested the nature and extent of Kalsman’s alleged neurological , which defense counsel attributed to progressive dementia. The defense’s expert neuropsychologist testified that Kalsman’s condition was due to dementia and not due to a traumatic brain injury. Defense counsel also subpoenaed a speech pathologist who testified that she examined Kalsman and concluded that his speech problems were due to intolerance to narcotics. In addition, defense counsel subpoenaed Kalsman’s treating orthopedic surgeon. He stated that Kalsman had been subject to falls twice in the 10 years before the alleged accident.