On May 12, 2012, plaintiff’s decedent Hua Yang, 55, a restaurant owner, presented to Dr. Po-Long Lew, an osteopathic and family medicine doctor, with complaints of abdominal pain. At presentation, Yang’s blood pressure was 134/102 with a heart rate that had increased to 113 beats per minute. He also had an elevated blood sugar level of 324. As a result, Lew administered intravenous sodium chloride with 40 milligrams of Pepcid, which is used to reduce stomach acid secretion, and 4 milligrams of Zofran, which is used to treat nausea. Lew also gave Yang a bottle of Jentadueto, which is used to improve blood sugar for those with Type 2 diabetes, but is contraindicated for those who might have diabetic ketoacidosis. Lew then instructed Yang to return in two days. Two days later, on May 14, 2012, Yang returned to Lew, but this time with an elevated blood sugar level of 570. Lew diagnosed Yang with uncontrolled diabetes and dehydration. As a result, Lew administered intravenous saline with Pepcid and Zofran, and gave an injection of insulin. He then told Yang to increase the dosage of Jentadueto and return the next day. The following morning, Yang was taken to a hospital’s emergency room, where he was determined to have a severely abnormal heart rhythm. Shortly thereafter, Yang died due to cardiac complications from diabetic ketoacidosis. Yang’s wife, Li Tong, acting individually and as representative of Yang’s estate, sued Lew, alleging that Lew was negligent in the treatment and misdiagnosis of Yang, and in the failure to refer Yang to a hospital. She also alleged that Lew’s negligence constituted medical malpractice. The matter was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court, and then proceeded to a binding arbitration. Plaintiffs’ counsel contended that the prescription of Jentadueto was negligent and likely worsened Yang’s condition and that Lew’s failure to arrange to have Yang hospitalized was also negligent. Specifically, plaintiffs’ counsel asserted that when Yang first presented to Lew on May 12, 2012, Yang’s symptoms of high blood pressure, increased heart rate, elevated blood sugar and abdominal pain were all indications of dehydration and possible diabetic ketoacidosis. Counsel also asserted that the medical chart had no documentation that Lew spoke with Yang about the seriousness of his condition and the dire necessity to be hospitalized. Counsel further asserted that Lew should have had Yang hospitalized on May 14, 2012, instead of administering the medications and telling him to return. The plaintiffs’ internal medicine expert opined that Yang’s elevated blood sugar level of 324 on May 12, 2012, required immediate transport to a hospital and that if the individual does not agree to go to a hospital, the standard of care required the doctor to explain that the individual’s life is in danger and that hospital treatment is mandatory. The expert added that if the individual is concerned about cost, a referral to a county hospital should be made and that if the individual still refuses, the discussion must be documented thoroughly in the chart. The expert further opined that when Yang returned with an elevated blood sugar level of 570 on May 14, 2012, the standard of care required that 911 be called with immediate hospitalization. The plaintiffs’ expert added that the May 14, 2012 presentation was so serious that he would have ridden in the ambulance with Yang. Lew claimed that he advised Yang to go to a hospital on May 12, 2012 because of the elevated blood pressure and blood sugar, but that Yang refused, allegedly stating that he could not afford to do so. Defense counsel asserted that Lew’s care and treatment of Yang was within the standard of care and that a doctor cannot force a patient to go to the hospital., Yang suffered cardiac complications related to diabetic ketoacidosis and subsequently died shortly after arriving at a hospital’s emergency room on May 14, 2012. Yang’s wife, Tong, sought recovery of $250,000 in noneconomic damages, the maximum statutory amount recoverable for Yang’s wrongful death. She also sought recovery of economic damages for her loss of spousal services and support. The plaintiffs’ expert economist testified about Tong’s loss of Yang’s income and the monetary value of Tong’s loss of spousal services.