On Oct. 25, 2015, plaintiff Victoria Porras, 61, a caretaker, presented to the emergency room at Sharp Chula Vista Medical Center. She was diagnosed with perforated diverticulitis. Dr. Yifan Yang, a general surgeon, performed a Hartmann’s procedure, also known as a proctosigmoidectomy, a type of colectomy requiring a colostomy bag. Porras remained at the hospital for 10 days before being sent home. She had a follow-up appointment with Yang on Nov. 20, 2015. However, she learned from her health insurance that she was not authorized to follow up with Yang. As a result, Porras stopped treating with Yang in November 2015 and followed up with her primary care doctor, who eventually discovered elevated creatinine levels in Porras’ body. Porras underwent an ultrasonography of her kidney in March 2016. Shortly thereafter, she also received a CT scan to prepare for the removal of her colostomy bag. The scans showed severe hydronephrosis, which is swelling of a kidney, and hydroureter, which is swelling of the ureter. The elevated creatinine also indicated an acute kidney injury. She was referred to a urologist at UC San Diego Medical Center, in Hillcrest. The urologist scheduled Porras for a cystoscopy in June 2016, and the procedure revealed an obstruction of Porras’ ureter. The urologist determined that the obstruction was caused by a staple from Yang’s Hartmann’s procedure. The obstruction could not be resolved with the cystoscopy procedure. In addition, the urologists and nephrologists at UC San Diego determined that Porras’ left kidney was not worth salvaging with a ureter reconstruction. As a result, Porras had to have her left kidney removed. Thereafter, she developed stage-IV kidney disease in her remaining kidney. Porras sued Yang and Sharp Chula Vista Medical Center. Porras alleged that Yang was negligent in the performance of the Hartmann’s procedure and for failing to diagnose the staple injury. She also alleged that Yang’s negligence constituted medical malpractice. Sharp Chula Vista Medical Center was ultimately dismissed from the case. Porras’ counsel argued that Yang partially or completely stapled the ureter shut during the Hartmann’s procedure. Counsel also argued that Yang should have performed additional tests during the November 2015 follow-up appointment to see if the creatinine levels were normal and if the hydronephrosis had subsided. Counsel argued that Yang was negligent for stapling Porras’ ureter during the Hartmann’s procedure and that Yang was negligent for failing to diagnose the injury before Porras was discharged from the hospital and/or before Porras left Yang’s care in November 2015. Porras’ expert surgeon opined that Yang did not do enough to find and avoid the ureter during the surgery and that the surgery was conducted below the standard of care. Porras’ expert nephrologist testified that during the 10 days that Porras was in the hospital, tests showed elevated creatinine levels and hydronephrosis. The expert opined that those conditions were signs of a ureter injury and that Yang should have performed more tests to detect the cause of the injury. Yang denied stapling the ureter shut. His counsel argued that, instead, one of the staples left in the abdomen as part of the Hartmann’s procedure eroded into the ureter over time. Counsel further argued that the eroded staple, along with scar tissue from the diverticulitis, led to the ureter obstruction developing after Porras left Yang’s care. The defense’s expert laparoscopic surgeon testified that a ureter injury is a known risk of the Hartmann’s procedure and opined that Yang did not need to take any extra action to locate the ureter during the surgery. The expert also opined that Porras’ postoperative test results were not unusual. The defense’s expert nephrologist maintained that Porras’ creatinine level was trending downward by the time she was discharged from the hospital and that mild hydronephrosis is common following the Hartmann’s procedure. Defense counsel maintained that there was no need for Yang to perform additional tests following the surgery, as elevated creatinine levels and hydronephrosis were normal postoperative findings. In addition, counsel argued that Porras reported no unusual pain or discomfort during the November 2015 follow-up appointment, so Yang had no reason to perform additional testing at that time., By the time the ureter obstruction was discovered, one of Porras’ kidneys had already sustained irreversible damage. As a result, she underwent a nephrectomy, a surgical removal of a kidney, in September 2016. She has since been diagnosed with Stage IV kidney disease in her remaining kidney. Porras missed approximately six months of work after the nephrectomy, and she continues to receive monitoring and follow-up appointments. She claimed that she has continued pain and discomfort in her abdomen and back. She alleged that as a result, she can no longer go to the beach, visit her family or work out at the gym. She also alleged that she may need dialysis in the future. In addition, Porras claimed that she is embarrassed by the scarring on her flank. Porras sought recovery of $15,000 in past lost earnings. She also sought recovery of future medical expenses and damages for her past and future pain and suffering. Defense counsel did not dispute Porras’ damages.