On June 24, 2011, plaintiff Maria Torres, an over 350-pound woman in her 40s who worked in the bakery at Walmart, was discharged from Sharp Memorial Hospital, in San Diego, after undergoing an L4-5 fusion three days earlier. Torres previously fell off a step stool in December 2010, her shoulder and back. She subsequently presented to Dr. Eric Korsh, a spine surgeon, who recommended surgery. The lumbar fusion procedure was performed by Korsh on June 21, 2011, and he was assisted by Dr. Gary Bench, who provided the anterior exposure, or opening the abdominal during surgery. The incision was about 10-centimeters long, and Bench closed the wound at the end of the procedure. Torres was then discharged from Sharp Memorial Hospital on June 24, 2011. Torres claimed that during her discharge, the hospital staff gave her a staple remover to take with her and told her to follow up with Korsh on July 6, 2011. Before presenting for any follow up, Torres’ husband removed the staples at home. The wound opened up, so Torres presented to an emergency room on June 30, 2011. In the E.R., physicians closed the wound with Steri-Strips and told Torres to follow up with Bench. Torres followed up with Bench on July 7, 2011, and, the next day, she underwent surgery, during which Bench reclosed the wound. Torres then went to a different hospital on July 17, 2011, because the wound had become infected. Torres sued Bench; Korsh; Sharp Memorial Hospital; and the surgeons’ medical office, San Diego General and Vascular Surgeons Medical Group Inc. Torres alleged that the surgeons were negligent in the handling of her discharge and follow-up care and that the hospital and medical group were vicariously liable for the actions of the two surgeons and other employees. She also alleged that the defendants’ negligence constituted medical malpractice. Prior to trial, Korsh was dismissed from the case and Sharp Memorial Hospital settled out. The matter then proceeded to trial against Bench and San Diego General and Vascular Surgeons Medical Group only. Torres’ husband, Santiago Mendez, claimed that on or about June 28, 2011, he received a phone call from someone on behalf of Bench asking him if he had removed his wife’s surgical staples. He claimed that when he replied that he had not, the individual told him that he must remove the staples to avoid an infection. However, Torres’ wound opened up. Thus, plaintiffs’ counsel argued that Bench was negligent for allowing Torres to be discharged with the staple remover and that the hospital was negligent for actually giving it to Torres. Counsel also argued that Bench was negligent for allegedly instructing the nurse to tell Torres and her husband to take the staples out by themselves at home. Torres claimed that after her wound reopened and she presented to the E.R. on June 30, 2011, she was told to call Bench and schedule a follow-up appointment within 48 hours. However, she claimed that Bench was on vacation and not available until after July 6, 2011, causing her wound to remain semi-open for over a week. Torres alleged that as a result, when Korsh learned about her reopened wound during her July 6, 2011 post-op appointment — which was scheduled by Korsh’s office back in early June — Korsh contacted Bench to help set a next-day appointment. She also alleged that once she followed up with Bench, the doctor told her that she needed to undergo reclosure surgery, but that her consent to the reclosure surgery was not informed because Bench failed to explain the risks of the surgery and the other options she had. In addition, plaintiffs’ counsel contended that it was negligent for Bench to reclose the wound, as it should have been left open to heal on its own and that this would have prevented an infection. The plaintiffs’ expert bariatric and general surgeon opined that Bench was negligent when he surgically reclosed the wound, as it should have been left open to heal on its own. The expert testified that not reclosing the wound would have prevented any infection. Bench claimed that he had nothing to do with giving Torres the staple remover and that he did not know anything about it. The defense’s general surgery expert testified that Torres’ husband took the staples out the day after Torres went home and that Torres waited five days for any treatment. The expert opined that as a result of those actions, Torres developed the infection. Counsel for Bench and San Diego General and the medical group contended that, under the circumstances, it was appropriate for Bench to reclose the wound when he did. The defense’s bariatric surgery expert opined that Bench complied with the standard of care in regard to Torres’ discharge and that Bench had nothing to do with the staple removal. The expert also opined that closing the wound was appropriate and within the standard of care., Torres’ wound reopened after the staples were removed, requiring it to be closed with Steri-Strips. She then underwent surgery to reclose the wound, but she developed an infection, which took several weeks to heal. During that time, Torres required a few additional hospitalizations and a subsequent surgery to treat the infection, resulting in a long recovery. Torres claimed that while she recovered from the infection, she was unable to work, clean, cook, or take care of her children. Thus, Torres sought recovery for her medical costs, and recovery of damages for her pain and suffering. Her husband, Santiago Mendez, sought recovery of damages for his loss of consortium.