On Nov. 14, 2001, plaintiff Nancy Golin, 43, a developmentally disabled adult who does not speak, wandered away from her parents and was missing for over 12 hours in Palo Alto. Nancy Golin’s parents, Jeffrey Golin and Elsie Golin, alleged that their daughter wandered away after being left alone in a van. After being located, Nancy Golin was taken to Stanford Hospital for evaluation under a 5150 hold. An emergency protective order was also obtained for her continued hold on the basis that her medical conditions were uncontrolled and required treatment. On Nov. 27, 2001, San Andreas Regional Center Inc. placed Nancy Golin at Embee Manor for long-term custodial care. Her parents were not allowed to know her whereabouts until a conservator was appointed almost a year later, although supervised visits were ordered, which began in March 2002. California Department of Developmental Services was eventually appointed conservator, and Nancy Golin was not returned to her parents care. In addition, her parents claimed that Nancy Golin sustained to her collarbone while being held at Embee Manor. Nancy Golin and her parents sued Edna Mantillas, who was doing business as Embee Manor; Stanford Hospital and Clinics (initially sued as Stanford Hospital Inc.); the project manager for the Santa Clara County Adult Protective Services, Jamie Buckmaster; San Andreas Regional Center Inc.; the director of San Andreas Regional Center, Santi Rogers; the regional manager at San Andreas Regional Center, Mimi Kinderlehrer; and the district manager at San Andreas Regional Center, Tucker Liske. The Golins also sued several other individuals and entities, but they were ultimately dismissed from the case. Plaintiffs’ counsel contended that Nancy Golin was unlawfully removed from her parents by the police, the Santa Clara County Adult Protective Services, and the San Andreas Regional Center. Counsel also contended that Nancy Golin was falsely imprisoned, unlawfully detained, and abused by Stanford Hospital and Clinics and the residential care home, Embee Manor. In addition, counsel contended that Stanford Hospital and Clinics and Embee Manor were negligent in the care and supervision of Nancy Golin. Thus, plaintiffs’ counsel argued that the defendants’ actions constituted dependent adult abuse under the Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act, and constituted violations of the Golins’ civil rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, for violations of the right of familial association. Defense counsel contended that Nancy Golin had a history of wandering away from her parents on numerous occasions and that Nancy Golin was taken to Stanford Hospital for evaluation under a 5150 hold only after her parents appeared to be uncooperative upon her return. Counsel also contended that the emergency protective order was obtained for Nancy Golin’s continued hold because her medical conditions were uncontrolled and required treatment, and because her parents were suspected of abuse and neglect of their adult child by healthcare providers and local law enforcement. In addition, counsel noted that the California Department of Developmental Services remains as Nancy Golin’s conservator. Thus, defense counsel argued that the defendants acted appropriately., Since Nancy Golin cannot speak, as she has the cognitive function of a toddler and has no safety awareness, she did not testify at trial. She is Jeffrey and Elsie Golin’s only child. Plaintiffs’ counsel contended that Nancy Golin suffered emotional distress and physical , including a clavicle fracture, while she was detained at Embee Manor. The clavicle fracture was diagnosed as an “old” fracture in November 2002, when Nancy Golin was a resident at Embee Manor, but there was divergence of opinion as to when the fracture occurred. Nancy Golin’s treating physician opined that the clavicle fracture had to have occurred while Nancy Golin was at Embee Manor. No treatment was necessary. Thus, the Golins sought recovery of general damages and emotional-distress damages due to the alleged violation of their civil rights. Defense counsel noted that no physician could accurately date the fracture and that the defense’s medical experts and lay witnesses testified that the fracture pre-dated Nancy Golin’s admission to Embee Manor. In addition, defense counsel noted that the plaintiffs retained expert orthopedist testified that Nancy Golin had no residual limitations.