On Nov. 2, 2010, at approximately 10 a.m., plaintiff Joyce Brown, 66, a decorator/remodeler, was leaving her Palm Desert condominium to walk her dog. As soon as she opened her garage door to take her dog “Trudy” outside, an unleashed Labrador owned by her neighbors, Nigel and Teresa Jones, ran up to Trudy. Brown claimed that during the course of protecting Trudy, she was severely bitten by Bentley on her hands, arms, and legs. She also claimed she sustained further trauma when Bentley knocked her to the ground, trampling her breasts and causing her head to strike the pavement. Brown sued the Bentley’s owner, Nigel and Teresa Jones, who were the neighbors occupying a vacation condominium. Brown alleged that the Joneses were strictly liable for the attack under the state’s dog bite statute. Brown claimed that the attack was unprovoked and that, in the course of protecting Trudy from the attack, she was severely bitten by the Joneses’ Labrador, “Bentley.” In addition, the plaintiff’s dog bite expert opined that, in light of the alleged brutality of the attack, Bentley must have been vicious in the past. The Joneses admitted that Bentley was unleashed when Brown walked out onto the driveway with Trudy and that Bentley ran up to Trudy and had to be restrained by Mr. Jones. However, they denied Brown was bitten by Bentley and claimed Bentley was provoked by the very aggressive, snarling behavior of Brown’s dog, Trudy. Defense counsel further contended that an investigation established that Trudy had viciously attacked a small dog in the neighborhood only three weeks prior to the alleged incident. In addition, the Joneses claimed that in the process of returning Trudy to the garage, Brown slipped and fell., One week after the incident, Brown presented to Palm Desert Urgent Care Center, complaining that one of her breast implants had become dislodged and that she had been bitten and scratched by the Joneses’ dog. Brown claimed she sustained lesions to her hands, arms, and legs, and sustained further trauma to her head, neck and breasts. She subsequently received a tetanus shot, underwent multiple breast reconstruction surgeries, a cervical fusion, and carpal tunnel surgery. Brown claimed she now suffers from depression and that she is completely disabled from prior employment, which involved purchasing expensive homes, redesigning them, and selling them for a profit. She also claimed Trudy was severely traumatized by the attack. Brown claimed that before the incident, Trudy was a kind, gentle and loving dog and that after the incident, she became nervous and aggressive. Thus Brown sought recovery of $5,000 in dog therapy costs at Karma for Canines, approximately $100,000 in past medical costs, $250,000 in past lost earnings, and $400,000 in estimated future medical expenses for further breast reconstruction surgeries and back surgery. She also sought recovery of general damages for her pain and suffering. Defense counsel contended that Brown’s entire story of being attacked, trampled, knocked to the ground and bitten was not supported by Brown’s medical records, which instead showed that she did not seek medical attention for the allegedly vicious attack until over a week after it occurred. Counsel contended that the records from Animal Control also showed that Brown had told an Animal Control officer that she was “not sure” if she had been bitten. While a report from the defense’s expert plastic surgeon conceded that Brown’s breast were consistent with a dog attack and that Brown’s subsequent surgeries were reasonable and necessary, at deposition the expert clarified that the alleged and resultant surgeries were also consistent with a pre-existing history of failed breast enhancement surgeries. Defense counsel further asserted that if Brown had sustained any on the date in question, it was from her slip and fall as she was in the process of returning Trudy to the garage.