On April 15, 2010, plaintiff John Glenn, a locomotive engineer in his 30s, was working for BNSF Railway Co. when he was exposed to electricity inside his locomotive. He claimed to his hands and forearms. Glenn sued BNSF Railway Co., alleging violations of the Federal Employers’ Liability Act and the Locomotive Inspection Act. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that BNSF had something mounted inside the locomotive via the installation of screws and that the screws penetrated the wires. Counsel contended that as a result, Glenn was exposed to 74 volts of electricity and that there should not have been any exposure to electricity by the engineer inside the locomotive. Defense counsel asserted that BNSF was not negligent and that BNSF had no notice of anything being wrong with the locomotive. Counsel contended that the subject locomotive underwent numerous and daily inspections and that the only current Glenn could have been exposed to was 32 volts, which came from a light bulb socket with a missing plastic insulator behind a dash light. In addition, defense counsel contended that 32 volts would not cause any harm to a human being and asserted that if Glenn was exposed to electricity it was because the builder of the locomotive failed to properly ground the engineer’s console to the frame., Glenn sustained an electric shock. He claimed he suffered a delayed onset of symptoms due to small fiber neuropathy. He alleged that as a result, he did not present for any medical care until one week or more after the incident. Glenn claimed he suffered nerve damage in his forearms and hands, which caused him pain. He subsequently underwent numerous diagnostic tests, all of which were normal, and injections for the pain. However, he claimed he could no longer use his hands they and was unable to return to work. The plaintiff’s treating expert neurologist testified via video about Glenn’s condition and the plaintiff’s electrical expert opined that the electric shock caused Glenn’s . Thus, Glenn sought recovery for his medical expenses and lost earnings. He also sought recovery of damages for his past and future pain and suffering. Defense counsel noted that any evidence of a medical injury was slim, as Glenn had no burn marks, and that no medical bills were presented at trial. Counsel also noted that Glenn continued to work after the accident, until he was laid off, and that Glenn said nothing about the alleged work injury to the first doctor he saw, his longtime chiropractor. Counsel further noted that all of Glenn’s diagnostic tests were normal and that Glenn went to the Chicago Electrical Trauma Research Institute, where he saw nine doctors and took a battery of neuropsychological tests, but that the results of that testing were so abnormally bad that they had to be thrown out. In addition, counsel noted that although Glenn testified that he had to wear gloves because his hands were always cold and because even the wind blowing on them caused his hands to hurt, evidence was presented showing Glenn in many places without wearing his gloves. Thus, defense counsel denied that Glenn was injured and argued that even if he was, it was a mild shock that could not produce any physical injury. The defense’s neurology expert testified that there was no objective medical evidence of any kind to support Glenn’s injury and disability claims. The defense’s expert in neuropsychology testified that if the results of the tests from the Chicago Electrical Trauma Research Institute accurately depicted Glenn’s condition, Glenn would be suffering from severe dementia or end-stage Alzheimer’s disease. The defense’s expert neuropsychologist and expert psychologist further testified that, based on their examinations and testing of Glenn, and their review of the sub rosa video, Glenn was “grossly exaggerating” his alleged .