On April 6, 2012, at around midnight, plaintiff Cassandra Mitchell, 54, a cashier, fell down the common area staircase of a multi-family apartment house that she occupied in Los Angeles. Mitchell fractured her right wrist in the fall. Mitchell sued the owners of the house, William Koo and Eleanor Koo; and the property manager, Kaplan Property Management. Mitchell alleged that the defendants were negligent for failing to properly repair and/or maintain the staircase, creating a dangerous condition. Mitchell claimed that the handrail for the subject staircase was loose, causing it to make an unexpected noise and movement that caused her to lose her balance and fall down the stairs. She contended that the handrail was not maintained in good repair and that the defendants had actual notice of the handrail’s condition, but failed to repair it. The plaintiff’s safety expert testified that the handrail was not maintained in good repair, as required by applicable building codes. In addition, the plaintiff’s property management expert testified that maintaining the staircase and leaving the handrail in the stated condition constituted a deviation in the standard of care of a responsible property manager/building owner. Defense counsel contended that the handrail was not loose, defective or dangerous and that Mitchell simply tripped or slipped on her own socks. The defense’s safety expert testified that the stairwell and handrail did not constitute an unreasonably dangerous condition., Mitchell fractured her right, dominant wrist. She was subsequently treated at an emergency care unit the next day. On April 12, 2012, Mitchell underwent open reduction and internal fixation surgery with the insertion of hardware, which consisted of plates and screws. She then followed up with rehabilitation therapy. Mitchell claimed ongoing issues with her wrist. She alleged that the condition and limitations of her right wrist has affected her ability to perform normal life actions. She claimed that as a result, her doctor indicated that hardware removal surgery could increase the range of motion in her wrist and reduce her pain. Thus, Mitchell sought recovery of $17,830 in past medical costs and between $15,000 and $20,000 in future medical costs for the hardware removal surgery and subsequent rehabilitation. She also sought recovery of damages for her past and future pain and suffering. Defense counsel contended that Mitchell was non-compliant with her medical treatment, in that Mitchell missed some follow-up therapy appointments. Counsel also contended that Mitchell’s non-compliance with follow-up care was the reason why she still experienced limited range of motion and pain to her wrist. In addition, defense counsel argued that Mitchell was never going to have the hardware removal surgery.