On June 12, 2013, plaintiff Martin Olvera Anguiano, 53, a restaurant owner, was shopping at a Home Depot store, in Ridgecrest. As he was looking at some products on a shelf in an aisle where a Home Depot employee was working, Anguiano took a step backward and allegedly. Anguiano claimed to his head. Anguiano sued the operator of the Ridgecrest store, Home Depot U.S.A. Inc. Anguiano testified that as he stepped backward while looking at some products on a shelf, he felt “something” under his foot, lost his balance, and landed across the aisle on a large pallet of tile that a Home Depot employee was stocking on another shelf. Anguiano claimed that he fell, struck his lower back, shoulder and head, before coming to rest between a shelf and the pallet of tile, which moved out of the way. He testified that he believed he tripped at a location adjacent to the pallet. The plaintiff’s expert safety engineer testified that the aisle was messy and that the store had failed to maintain a safe shopping environment for Anguiano. However, the expert conceded that there was no evidence that Anguiano had slipped on a Swiffer box that was also alleged to have been involved in the accident. The Home Depot employee who was working in the aisle at the time of the incident claimed that he had warned Anguiano to be careful as he was maneuvering around the pallet of tile. The defense’s biomechanical engineering expert testified that there was no evidence that Anguiano had slipped on anything in the aisle and that there was no sign of any trauma to his head. Moreover, defense counsel asserted that Anguiano had no idea what caused him to lose his balance and, thus, there was no evidence of any dangerous condition. Counsel contended that even if there was “something” in the aisle that caused Anguiano to fall, the store employee had also warned Anguiano to be careful while traversing the aisle. Thus, defense counsel argued that Home Depot was not liable for Anguiano’s alleged fall. The defense’s biomechanical engineering expert testified that, based on the photos taken by Home Depot, it was impossible to trip where Anguiano, in his deposition, identified as the location of the fall, which was approximately 12 feet away from where he came to rest. The expert explained that if Anguiano fell where he alleged, Anguiano would have had to take several steps before falling. However, on cross-examination, the defense’s expert biomechanical engineer conceded that her opinions would be inapplicable if Anguiano was confused about the location of where he tripped before he fell. As there was no evidence as to what actually caused Anguiano to fall, the parties bifurcated the trial as to liability and damages., Anguiano claimed that as he fell, he struck his lower back, a shoulder, and his head before coming to rest between the pallet and the shelf. Anguiano and his wife testified that Anguiano had suffered a blow to his head, causing him to develop a large, red and swollen area on the back of his head in the weeks following the accident. Paramedics arrived at the scene to provide emergency care, and Anguiano was transported to the local emergency room. He was then transferred to a trauma hospital in Bakersfield, where he underwent radiological studies, including a CT scan and an MRI of the brain. After 36 hours, when all of his radiological studies came back normal, Anguiano was diagnosed with having suffered a possible syncope (a temporary loss of consciousness caused by a fall in blood pressure) and was then discharged from the hospital. Three weeks later, Anguiano sought treatment from his expert chiropractor, who later testified that he recalled seeing a swollen, red area on the back of Anguiano’s head. Plaintiff presented evidence from several retained experts, including an expert neurologist who testified that Anguiano had suffered a mild traumatic brain injury, which resulted in ongoing complaints of headaches, memory and concentration difficulties, mood swings, irritability, and depression. Anguiano also claimed he suffered pain to his lower back and a shoulder. Anguiano’s wife, sister, and brother all testified that his personality had changed after the accident. They claimed that Anguiano became forgetful, difficult to be around, and often had to rest or lay down because of headaches and/or back pain. Anguiano also testified that he had difficulty running his restaurant business, remembering orders, and had initially been off work for three months after the accident. His brother and sister also testified that Anguiano became less involved at the restaurant after the accident and that Anguiano no longer interacted with customers with the same friendliness and energy he had before the accident. In addition, a customer from Anguiano’s restaurant testified that he had noted a difference in Anguiano’s demeanor and personality post-accident. Thus, Anguiano sought recovery of $800,000 in total economic losses, including $98,000 in past medical care costs, $280,000 in future medical care costs based on a life care plan, and unspecified amounts for his past and future wage loss. He also sought recovery of non-economic damages for his past and future pain and suffering. Plaintiff’s counsel had sought to introduce evidence of Anguiano’s alleged mild traumatic brain injury by relying upon the results of a quantitative EEG (qEEG), which was performed by a neurophysiologist over two years after the accident. However, defense counsel objected, and filed a motion in limine to exclude any reference to the qEEG, arguing that it was an unreliable scientific method that cannot be used to diagnose a mild traumatic brain injury. Plaintiff’s counsel presented evidence of qEEGs application as a diagnostic tool for a mild traumatic brain injury, but the court ultimately excluded the qEEG and its results. As a result, plaintiff’s counsel deleted any reference to qEEG, including deleting a $1 million claim for future qEEG/brain mapping treatments from future medical expenses. Plaintiff’s counsel noted that the court allowed the same type of technology to diagnose a mild traumatic brain injury through the Brain Network Activation (BNA) testing conducted by Anguiano’s treating neurologist, but that one of the reasons relied on by the court in excluding the qEEG testing was because it was the product of testing by a neurophysiologist, rather than a neurologist. Defense counsel argued that Anguiano did not suffer a mild traumatic brain injury, citing the medical records and the lack of any objective evidence that Anguiano suffered any head trauma in the fall. Counsel noted that while plaintiff’s counsel relied on the large, red and swollen area on the back of Anguiano’s head to support the claim that Anguiano had suffered a mild traumatic brain injury, no such observation of the swollen, red area at the back of Anguiano’s head was noted anywhere in Anguiano’s medical records. Defense counsel further argued that Anguiano’s orthopedic resolved after undergoing chiropractic care. On cross-examination, Anguiano’s treating chiropractic expert admitted that his notes indicated that Anguiano was mostly pain free and back to work within a few months of the accident. Defense counsel called the paramedics who treated Anguiano and they all confirmed that their records did not note a head trauma, but did note a Glasgow Coma Scale of 13. The records also showed a possible loss of consciousness and confusion by Anguiano. Defense counsel also called the attending emergency room doctor, who testified that while his records did not note any signs of head trauma, he did not physically check Anguiano for signs of head trauma because Anguiano had undergone diagnostic testing to determine the existence of a skull fracture or a hematoma. The attending emergency room doctor further claimed that as he was concerned with Anguiano’s emergent care, he would not have looked for bruising on the skull. Defense counsel relied on their experts in neuropsychology and neurology to contend that Anguiano suffered only orthopedic in the fall. The defense’s neuropsychologist testified extensively that Anguiano gave poor effort during his neuropsychological testing and that Anguiano suffered from depression related to his lower back and shoulder pain from the accident. The defense’s expert neurologist testified that Anguiano also gave poor effort during his physical examination and that Anguiano did not suffer a concussion or a mild traumatic brain injury. The neurologist also testified that Anguiano’s orthopedic resolved in a few months. The expert testified that he relied on the neuropsychological testing to support his opinions and that he disregarded the BNA test results administered by Anguiano’s treating neurologist, which revealed objective evidence of brain dysfunction. The defense’s expert neurologist also refused to consider the Head Impact Testing (HIT) conducted by the plaintiff’s treating neurologist, which also revealed objective evidence of vestibular dysfunction. In addition, the defense’s neurology expert testified that the test results must be disregarded because they showed severe dysfunction of the vestibular canals, which would interfere with Anguiano’s ability to maintain balance. Defense counsel also challenged Anguiano’s claims about changes in personality through cross-examination of Anguiano’s wife, who was his girlfriend at the time of the accident. According to defense counsel, Anguiano’s wife was impeached with a prior statement submitted in support of a restraining order requested one day after the Home Depot accident. In the statement, Anguiano’s wife stated she was afraid of Anguiano and that he had been controlling and angry in the past. In addition, defense counsel pointed out the alleged inconsistencies among witnesses regarding Anguiano’s demeanor and ability to work. Thus, defense counsel asked the jury to award only up to $208,000 for Anguiano’s orthopedic .