On June 25 or 26, 2011, plaintiff Pauline Gogol, 85, a retiree, was a resident of Mills-Peninsula Skilled Nursing, a nursing home in Burlingame, where she was recovering from total right hip replacement surgery that was performed on June 7, 2011. She claimed her right hip was reinjured at the nursing home by an undocumented fall or drop. Gogol, by and through her sister and guardian ad litem, Jennifer Gogol, sued Mills-Peninsula Health Services, which was doing business as Mills-Peninsula Skilled Nursing. She alleged that the nursing home’s actions constituted negligence and elder abuse in violation of the California Elder Abuse and Dependant Adult Civil Protection Act. The case was prosecuted through a guardian ad litem because Pauline Gogol suffered from cognitive limitations and was unable to testify. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that Gogol suffered a fall or drop at Mills-Peninsula, but that the incident was left undocumented in an attempt to cover it up. Counsel also contended that Gogol’s reinjured hip was left untreated until her sister discovered the injury during a visit to the nursing home. In addition, plaintiff’s counsel argued that Gogol had a significant change in condition during the time period of her alleged fall or drop, as reflected by the fact that she had walked during physical therapy on the afternoon of June 25, but that she was in pain and unable to bear any weight on her leg when her sister came to visit her on June 26. Mills-Peninsula claimed that Gogol never suffered a fall or drop, and that there was no cover up. Defense counsel contended that Gogol was seen by two physicians on June 26, prior to being seen by her sister, and that neither physician diagnosed the injury. Counsel also noted that the plaintiff’s sister admitted at trial that she did not see any bruising, scratches or other manifestation of trauma during her visit on July 26. Thus, defense counsel argued that Gogol’s injury occurred as a result of a transfer or some other non-negligent cause. The defense’s expert orthopedic surgeon published a paper in a December 2011 orthopedic journal about this very injury happening as a result of minor trauma. Mills-Peninsula filed a cross-complaint against MGA Healthcare Inc. and Relief Nursing Services Inc., which were two outside companies that Mills-Peninsula had hired to provide “sitters” to watch Gogol. It alleged that if there was any negligence, then liability should be borne by MGA Healthcare and/or Relief Nursing Services, as the employers of the sitters. The cross-defendants’ counsel argued that there was no evidence that an injury took place during the time that the employees of MGA Healthcare and Relief Nursing Services were responsible for monitoring Gogol, and that there was no evidence that any of the sitters (two from Relief Nursing Services and one from MGA Healthcare) were negligent in any manner or breached the standard of care. However, the cross-claim for indemnity was bifurcated, so counsel for the cross-defendants did not present opening statements or closing arguments., Gogol suffered a hip dislocation and fracture to her right hip socket (the acetabulum). Her sister, a retired nurse, claimed that the hip appeared to be dislocated when she saw her on June 26. Gogol underwent emergency right hip surgery on June 27, 2011, and the surgeon who performed the procedure reported significant trauma and compared the injury to something that would be seen in an auto accident. As a result, the hip was not able to be repaired and the newly placed prosthesis had to be removed, leaving Gogol with no right hip. Gogol was left wheelchair-bound and without a right hip for four months after the surgery. In November 2011, she underwent a successful revision surgery and a new prosthetic hip was implanted. Plaintiff’s counsel claimed that Gogol’s recovery from the incident and additional surgeries have been slow, causing her to not be able to return home and to need to live at a board and care facility. In March 2012, Gogol sustained another injury, a femur fracture just above the knee, which also impeded her recovery. At the time of trial, she was still recovering from that injury. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that Gogol is now largely wheelchair-bound, although she has gradually been able to use a walker. Thus, counsel asked the jury to award Gogol $37,800 in damages for her past medical costs, $933,000 in damages for her future medical costs, $545,000 in damages for her past pain and suffering, and $900,000 in damages for her future pain and suffering. Defense counsel contended that Gogol’s were a complication of her underlying hip replacement, due to her age, osteoporosis and the manner in which the original surgery had been done. Counsel also contended that Gogol suffered from previously undiagnosed dementia, which was made worse by the initial surgery. Thus, defense counsel argued that even without the injury, Gogol would not have been safe to go home and likely would have needed to live in a board and care facility for the rest of her life. Plaintiff’s counsel countered that Gogol was on a path to recovery after the surgery on June 7, 2011, and that she would have returned home absent the injury that left her with no hip and in a wheelchair.