On Sept. 22, 2015, plaintiff Enrique Corrales, 38, a handyman, had a SCRAM alcohol monitoring bracelet placed on his ankle by a technician with SCRAM of California Inc. while at a hospital. Corrales was previously arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol and for domestic violence, a misdemeanor. He was brought to a hospital because health issues. As part of the condition to be released from custody due to his health issues, the judge agreed to have Corrales monitored by a SCRAM bracelet, which monitors perspiration and alcohol content, and sends the data via Wi-Fi to a SCRAM office. While the monitor was being placed on Corrales’ ankle, he allegedly told the technician that the bracelet was too tight. However, the technician allegedly told Corrales that the bracelet would loosen and did not adjust the monitor. Corrales claimed that he tried to contact SCRAM to have the bracelet adjusted, but no one responded. He eventually spoke with someone at the SCRAM office seven days later, but Corrales claimed he sustained an injury to his ankle by that time. Corrales sued SCRAM of California Inc. Corrales alleged that SCRAM was negligent in the supervision and training of the technician. Corrales also alleged that the technician’s actions constituted battery because, while Corrales consented to having the bracelet placed on his ankle, he did not consent to having the bracelet overtightened. Judge Katherine Bacal dismissed Corrales’ battery claim based on defense counsel’s motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that SCRAM had no system in place to monitor or evaluate the technicians, so no one saw how technicians were applying the SCRAM bracelets and no reviews were done on how technicians were performing the applications. Counsel also contended that SCRAM technicians were not required to provide any reports, so no reports were generated as to the applications of the monitors. Plaintiff’s counsel further contended that at around the time of the subject date, SCRAM did not have any type of organization as to handling phone calls, such as being able to reach a receptionist, and whether a voicemail would be received or relayed. In addition, counsel contended that on Saturdays and Sundays, there was no phone response at all and that although Corrales waited two days for the bracelet to loosen, as the technician allegedly told him it would, Corrales was unable to reach anyone at the SCRAM office until six days later. Corrales claimed that when he eventually spoke with someone at the SCRAM office on the sixth day, they told him that no one would be able to see him for a week and that if he decided to take the bracelet off himself before that time, he risked paying a charge of $2,500 to SCRAM, and risked having SCRAM report him to the court as being in violation of the conditions of his release, causing him to be sent back to jail. Plaintiff’s counsel argued that the SCRAM technicians were trained incorrectly, noting that the technicians deposed by plaintiff’s counsel all testified that there needed to be two fingers between the band and the skin, while a defense witness from SCRAM, who was part of the manufacturing company that built the device, testified that the units only had to be able to rotate two complete circles on the ankle. Defense counsel argued that the subject ankle bracelet was not placed incorrectly and that any swelling that Corrales may have suffered was minimal. Counsel also argued that if it was as bad as Corrales alleged, than Corrales should have had a health care provider remove the bracelet or Corrales could have removed it himself., Corrales claimed he developed neuropathy in the interior nerve of the ankle that had the SCRAM bracelet placed on it. He claimed his injury ultimately resulted in him developing a drop foot and that as a result, he developed a limp when he walked, which created added problems to his knee, hip and back. Corrales alleged that he has to walk with a walker and that he can no longer work as a handyman as a result of his injury. He also alleged that he will either need ankle surgery or need to wear a brace on his ankle for five to seven years to see if the neuropathy improves. Corrales sought recovery of future medical costs, future lost wages, and damages for his past and future pain and suffering. His wife, Maria Martinez, presented a derivative claim seeking recovery for her loss of consortium. The defense’s neurological expert opined that Corrales’ drop foot was not substantiated by the medical records. However, according to plaintiff’s counsel, the defense’s orthopedic expert opined that Corrales’ injury was definitely present, contradicting the defense’s neurological expert.