On Oct. 16, 2011, plaintiff Jonathan Bates, 26, a student, presented to Whittier Hospital Medical Center with a 30-minute history of right sided weakness, body tingling, and slurred speech. Bates was evaluated by Dr. Katherine T. Au Hargraves, an emergency room physician who suspected the symptoms were neurological. Hargraves ordered a CT scan, which was negative for internal bleeding, and consulted with an internist roughly two hours and 45 minutes after the onset of Bates’ symptoms. Bates was admitted to the hospital overnight and the following day, an MRI performed on Bates revealed an ischemic stroke. Bates sued Hargraves and the operator of Whittier Hospital Medical Center, AHMC Whittier Hospital Medical Center LP. Bates alleged that the defendants failed to timely treat his condition or consult with a neurologist and that these failures constituted medical malpractice. AHMC Whittier Hospital Medical Center was voluntarily dismissed from the case prior to trial. Plaintiffs’ counsel contended that Bates was a poster boy for an ischemic stroke when presenting to Whittier Hospital Medical Center on Oct. 16, 2011. Counsel argued that Hargraves should have either administered a tPA (a tissue plasminogen activator), a clot-busting drug, or immediately consulted with a neurologist within three hours of the onset of Bates’ symptoms. Counsel contended that had Bates been given the medication or placed under the care of a neurologist, Bates’ stroke would not have completed and he would not have suffered the residual effects. Hargraves claimed she made a judgment call not to administer the tPA nor contact a neurologist. She further claimed that it was appropriate for her to consult with an internist and to admit Bates to the hospital, and that all of her actions were appropriate and complied with the standard of care. Hargraves’ counsel argued that Bates’ neurological symptoms could have been a number of things and that clot-busting medication, like tPA, could have been potentially life-threatening if administered. Thus, counsel argued that Bates’ ischemic stroke was unavoidable and inevitable, and that Bates simply faced a tough diagnosis. Counsel also argued that there was no evidence that Bates would have benefited from a tPA and that it was very unlikely it would have resulted in a 100 percent good outcome with no residuals., Bates suffered an ischemic stroke. He claimed that while his condition is considered stable, he now has right-sided weakness in his arm and leg, which requires him to walk with a cane. He also claimed that while he was able to continue on as a student, he will now have a 25 percent reduction in his work-life expectancy as a college professor. In addition, Bates claimed he can no longer exercise, go jogging, cook or help around the house. Bates claimed his future loss earnings would amount to $373,000 if he was to become a professor of religion and $635,000 if he was able to obtain all Ph.D.’s. He also sought recovery of $500,000 in damages for his past pain and suffering, and $1 million in damages for his future pain and suffering. His wife, Debra Bates, sought recovery of $250,000 for her loss of consortium. Hargraves’ counsel contended that Mr. Bates was able to continue his school and had a bright future as a college professor.