On June 7, 2009, plaintiff Mayra Carrillo, an unemployed 29 year old, was shopping at Vallarta Supermarket in North Hills when she she slipped and fell. She claimed she injured her lower back in the fall. Carrillo originally erroneously suedJoya Food Enterprises Inc., believing it to be the company that controlled Vallarta Supermarket. However, the case was amended to be against Zixta Food Enterprises, doing business as Vallarta Supermarkets. She alleged that the supermarket failed to properly and timely maintain the subject area, creating a dangerous condition. Carrillo claimed that she slipped and fell on oil from a bottle that had been dropped on the floor by a Vallarta employee within seconds before the accident. Thus, she claimed the defendant was liable for its employee’s negligence., One day after the accident, Carrillo presented to her doctor for treatment of her lower back complaints. She subsequently underwent MRIs, which she claimed revealed a bulging lumbar disc at the L5-S1 level with an annual tear. Her treating neurosurgeon testified that plaintiff’s disc was damaged, resulting in foraminal compromise and nerve root impingement. Carrillo ultimately treated her for approximately two years, with a nine-month gap, including chiropractic care, orthopedic consultations, EMG studies and epidural injections, which was charged at $72,600. Carrillo claimed she still experiences severe lower back pain, radiating down to her lower left extremity. Thus, she alleged that conservative treatment failed to resolve her , and that she is a candidate for a lumbar discectomy and fixation with hardware. Carrillo subsequently claimed $110,000 in past medical costs, $160,000 in future medical costs and an unspecified amount in pain and suffering. Defense counsel argued that Carrillo suffered nothing more than soft-tissue contusions to her lower back, and that her treatment was excessive and unnecessary. Counsel further argued that the plaintiff’s treatment was incurred on a lien basis in order to inflate the value of the case. In addition, defense counsel contended that Carrillo was not a candidate for future surgery, and that her left-side radicular complaints were inconsistent with the right-side findings on her two MRIs.