On Sept. 30, 2010, plaintiff Caroline Salaz, 69, a retiree, underwent a laparoscopic enterolysis and cholecystectomy by Dr. William Cannata, a general surgeon, at Presbyterian Intercommunity Hospital in Whittier. Salaz initially presented to Cannata on Sept. 7, 2010, with complaints of abdominal pain. Salaz, who had a history of cholecystitis, which is an inflammation of the gallbladder, was diagnosed with cholelithiasis, also known as gallstones, and chronic cholecystitis episodes. As a result, Cannata scheduled Salaz for surgery. Following the procedure on Sept. 30, 2010, Salaz’s condition did not improve and she was progressively getting worse. As a result, Cannata performed an exploratory surgery on Oct. 2, 2010. During this procedure, Cannata discovered a perforation of the small bowel and performed a resection. Salaz was ultimately discharged from the hospital on Oct. 14, 2010. However, she later developed a hernia and required hernia repair surgery on May 30, 2011. Salaz sued Cannata. She alleged that the doctor failed to properly perform the initial surgery, failed to timely diagnosis the perforation, and failed to timely treat her small bowel perforation. She also alleged that these failures constituted medical malpractice. Salaz’s counsel contended that Cannata performed the initial surgery (the laparoscopic enterolysis and cholecystectomy) below the standard of care, in that he executed a blind trocar placement. Counsel argued that the technique caused Salaz’s perforation, and that Cannata was late to diagnose the perforation and perform the resection. Cannata contended that he did not execute a blind trocar placement, but rather used a modified Hasson technique, in which he was able to visualize the area before entering the first trocar. Thus, defense counsel argued that Cannata’s surgical technique was within or beyond the standard of care, and that none of Cannata’s actions were negligent. In addition, Cannata and the defense’s expert general surgeon both testified that the perforation was a known risk of the initial surgery, commonly caused by the lysis of adhesions, in absence of any negligence. Cannata also disputed Salaz’s delayed diagnosis claim, alleging that the perforation was timely diagnosed during the exploratory surgery on Oct. 2, 2010. He also claimed that all monitoring and labs taken between the two surgeries were appropriate, and that a small bowel radiograph taken during that time was negative. Cannata further claimed that even if the perforation was discovered during the first surgery, Salaz still would have required the resection, and that the hernia she suffered was another known risk of the underlying surgery., Salaz suffered a perforation of the small bowel, requiring a second surgery that included a resection and an extended stay at the hospital. She was ultimately discharged from the hospital on Oct. 14, 2010. Salaz then underwent a hernia repair surgery on May 30, 2011, which she claimed was caused by the small bowel resection. Thus, Salaz asked the jury for $250,000 in general damages, while her husband, Alfred Salaz, sought recovery of damages for his loss of consortium.