On June 10, 2014, plaintiff Thomas Martin, a 64-year-old unemployed man who was receiving disability benefits, was undergoing a vocational evaluation at Jewish Vocational Service, a non-profit organization in Los Angeles that provides job placement and testing services. Martin was referred to the organization by the California Department of Rehabilitation, and he was undergoing his fourth day of testing on the subject date when the chair he was sitting on allegedly collapsed. Martin claimed to his back. Martin sued Jewish Vocational Service and the landlord of the building, Jewish Federation Council of Greater Los Angeles. Jewish Federation Council of Greater Los Angeles was ultimately dismissed from the case. Martin claimed that the service did not properly replace, inspect and/or maintain the chairs it offered to its disabled clientele, creating a dangerous condition. He testified that after his chair collapsed, a service employee helped him up and took away the chair, placing it in a back room. Martin’s safety expert and employees of Jewish Vocational Service agreed that the Department of Rehabilitation required its vendors, such as Jewish Vocational Service, to inspect their property semi-annually for safety hazards. They also contended that a structurally sound chair would not tip over by design and that the service’s office chairs had manufacturers’ labels on them requiring their chairs to be inspected every three to six months and requiring all bolts, screws and other mechanic parts to be tightened to avoid serious injury. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that the service’s office chairs were high-traffic and that they had not been replaced, maintained or inspected, as required by the Department of Rehabilitation and the manufacturers, for at least seven years prior to Martin’s fall. Counsel also noted that another disabled service client, who was found in 2018, had fallen off a chair in June 2014 and that a service employee had helped up the fallen person. Plaintiff’s counsel also obtained the deposition testimony of an ex-employee of Jewish Vocational Service, who confirmed that the service’s employee who helped Martin knew of Martin’s claim in 2014 and that she and that service employee had inspected the chairs together in 2014. The ex-employee also claimed that out-of-order chairs were kept in the back room, as alleged by Martin. However, plaintiff’s counsel noted that the ex-employee became represented by defense counsel and contradicted her own deposition testimony at trial by claiming she did not remember the date she became aware of Martin’s incident. Employees of Jewish Vocational Service claimed that they inspected and cleaned the chairs daily and that no chair had ever collapsed at the service. While they admitted that their inspections did not include turning over the chairs to inspect for loose bolts under the seat, they claimed that any looseness would be evident. Representatives of Jewish Vocational Service contended that employees and other clients of the organization sat on and operated the chairs daily without any complaints about stability either before or after the incident. They also contended that Martin did not complain about the chair before or after the incident, further negating notice of any dangerous condition, and that after the fall, Martin got up and continued his testing for approximately five more hours. They further contended that there were no broken or collapsed chairs and that Martin must have tipped over on the chair while he was sitting on it. In addition, representatives of the service claimed that although Martin could not identify the specific chair he was using at the time of the incident, the service did not remove or dispose of any chairs in the testing center, and that as a result, there was no notice of any alleged dangerous condition, despite daily use and inspections., Martin claimed he sustained herniated lumbar discs at the L2-3 and L3-4 levels, as well as abrasions to the neck, back and back of his leg. He also claimed he suffered hip pain with radicular pain into his legs and muscle spasms. Martin saw a physician, underwent physical therapy, received several epidural injections and, ultimately, underwent an anterior lateral discectomy and fusion at L2-3 on Sept. 28, 2015. Martin admitted that he had pre-existing, lower back pain, but his counsel introduced pre-fall and post-fall MRIs that allegedly showed an extrusion and aggravation of Martin’s back issues after the chair fall. The plaintiff’s in orthopedic surgery expert opined that Martin will have adjacent segment disease due to the first fusion surgery and that Martin will require a future fusion. The expert also opined that a chair fall supported the mechanism of the injury that Martin had suffered and that Martin could have flexed his abdominal and paraspinal muscles during the fall, which would have been enough to cause the herniations. The plaintiff’s safety expert also opined that a chair fall supported the mechanism of the injury that Martin had suffered. Martin testified that that he suffered pain until he had surgery and that his lower back pain was better after surgery. However, he claimed his residual have affected the quality of his life. Martin sought recovery of $120,000 in past medical costs (Howell) and approximately $120,000 in further medical costs for the future lumbar fusion. He also sought recovery of damages for his past and future pain and suffering. During closing arguments, plaintiff’s counsel asked the jury to award Martin $3.8 million in total damages. Defense counsel contended that Martin had pre-existing lumbar issues and at least a five-year history of lumbar pain that Martin treated with medication and various other treatments. Counsel also contended that Martin did not seek treatment until 14 days after the alleged incident. As a result, defense counsel argued that Martin’s were not caused by the alleged incident. The defense’s orthopedic surgery expert opined that Martin’s pre-incident MRI from December 2013 showed pre-existing, degenerative conditions and bulging lumbar discs at the L2-3 and L3-4 levels, among other levels. The expert opined that those conditions would have already given rise to pain five years before the alleged incident and that the fall from the chair would not provide a mechanism for injury for a disc herniation. Instead, the expert opine that the lumbar herniations shown in the September 2014 and later MRIs showed degenerative progression and was not caused by trauma. According to plaintiff’s counsel, defense counsel vigorously attacked Martin’s character and past history.