On Sept. 22, 2010, plaintiff Jeanine Del Carlo, 29, a fitness instructor, model and singer, underwent bilateral breast implant replacement procedure with a Benelli (doughnut) mastopexy. The surgery was performed by Dr. Linda Li, a plastic surgeon. Prior to undergoing the procedure, Del Carlo underwent a breast implant and crescent lift procedure in 2004, but suffered a deflation of the left breast implant in September 2010. As a result, Li advised Del Carlo that she was a candidate for either the Benelli procedure or the Wise (anchor) mastopexy. Li advised Li that the Wise mastopexy would provide a stronger lift, but that it would have more scarring. However, Del Carlo chose to go with the Benelli lift, allegedly due to cost and lesser scarring. As a result, the Benelli mastopexy was performed on Sept. 22, 2010. On Feb. 24, 2011, Li performed a revision of the scars around the nipple areolar complex when the wounds were almost completely healed. After the revision, the sutures around the left nipple separated and, on March 1, 2011, Del Carlo presented to Li for further evaluation. Li once again sutured the dehisced wound, this time with permanent nylon sutures as she felt they would provide the best chance for healing. Del Carlo then had the permanent sutures replaced with the dissolvable sutures that same day. Del Carlo claimed that following the replacement of the sutures, Li abandoned her, causing the incision on her left nipple areolar complex to reopen again. Del Carlo sued Li. She alleged that Li failed to properly monitor and treat her breast condition, and that this failure constituted medical malpractice. Plaintiff’s counsel noted that their expert became unavailable just before trial, and requested a continuance to obtain a new expert witness. However, the court denied plaintiff’s counsel’s request. Del Carlo claimed that, prior to undergoing the Benelli procedure, she was aware of the risk of wound dehiscence, scarring, potential need for revision surgery, delayed wound healing, and infection, among other risks, but that Li should have still performed the Wise mastopexy, instead. She also claimed that Li’s post-operative instructions regarding showering the day after the procedure were inappropriate, as water, which contains bacteria, could enter the incision site and cause an infection. She alleged that as a result, she did, in fact, sustain an infection post-surgery. Del Carlo also claimed that Li should not have performed the scar revision on Feb. 24, 2011, but should have waited until the wounds were fully healed. She further claimed that she was not provided with appropriate information regarding the risk of switching from permanent to dissolvable sutures, namely that the wound could separate again, which ultimately happened. Thus, she claimed that without the proper information, she could not give Li her informed consent regarding switching the sutures. In addition, Del Carlo claimed that after switching the sutures, Li abandoned her by telling her to never to return to her office. She alleged that after replacing the permanent sutures with the dissolvable sutures, Li told her not to come back again if the wound separated, as she would not fix it. Del Carlo claimed that after she left Li’s office, the wound reopened later on March 1, 2011. Thus, she claimed that Li left her to care for her infected and open wounds on her own, over a several month period, without physician supervision. Defense counsel contended that Del Carlo did not provide any medical support from a physician or expert to support her claimed that the incision sites were indeed infected. Counsel noted Del Carlo consulted with a subsequent plastic surgeon on the four occasions from March 2011 through October 2011, but did not retain him as her expert physician. Thus, defense counsel called this physician to testify that Del Carlo did not suffer an infection, but rather had wound separation and delayed wound healing, which are known and accepted risks of the procedures performed. Li and the defense’s plastic surgery expert also testified to this opinion. Li also claimed that it was appropriate for her to perform the scar revision on Feb. 24, 2011, as there were only small openings of the incision remaining that would be excised with the scar tissue. She alleged that when the incision on the left breast separated again, as this was an acute separation, it was appropriate to attempt to re-close it as there would be no harm if it re-dehisced, and only benefit if it healed primarily. With regard to the exchange of sutures, Li testified that she usually does not discuss the type of sutures used, as this is the surgeon’s choice. However, she claimed that Del Carlo, upon seeing the permanent nylon sutures used, insisted on the nylon sutures being replaced with the dissolvable Monocryl sutures that were used during the previous surgeries. Li alleged that she attempted to explain to Del Carlo that the Monocryl sutures on the left breast had failed and that while there was a possibility that the wound could heal if replaced with Monocryl sutures, nylon sutures would provide the optimal chance for healing. Li claimed that despite advising Del Carlo that permanent nylon sutures were the best chance for healing, Del Carlo still opted to have the permanent sutures replaced with the dissolvable sutures. The defense’s plastic surgery expert testified that while the dissolvable sutures were sub-optimal, the decision to use dissolvable sutures were within the standard of care, as there was still a chance that, as with the right breast, the incision would close primarily with the use of these sutures. The expert further opined that as such, it was appropriate to replace the sutures at Del Carlo’s request. Finally, Li denied abandoning Del Carlo and testified that she had a follow-up appointment scheduled with Del Carlo for March 3, 2011. However, Li claimed that she was advised on the morning of March 3, 2011, that Del Carlo had called the night before to cancel the appointment. The plastic surgeon who then saw Del Carlo during March 2011 through October 2011 testified that a physician-patient relationship was established with Del Carlo on March 3, 2001, and that Del Carlo advised him that she wished to transfer her care from Li to him., Del Carlo claimed that she suffered an infection after the September 2010 procedure and that the incision on her left nipple areolar complex reopened after it was sutured again on March 1, 2011, resulting in delayed healing. She also claimed she suffered a bilateral implant rupture in April 2012 and May 2012, which resulted in the need for a subsequent bilateral implant exchange with a Wise mastopexy in June 2012. Del Carlo alleged that she was left with pain and permanent scarring and/or disfigurement of her breasts. She also alleged that she suffered emotional distress from having to care for her open and infected incisions over a several month period without the oversight of a physician. In addition, Del Carlo alleged that she was unable to work for a certain period of time. Defense counsel disputed Del Carlo’s emotional distress claim, noting that Del Carlo canceled her own follow-up appointment with Li and presented to another plastic surgeon four times between March 2011 and October 2011. Thus, counsel argued that Del Carlo was not left without the oversight of a physician.