On Oct. 30, 2010, plaintiff Marta Segovia, 46, a housekeeper, was taken to a hospital because of the change in her mental status. Segovia previously began experiencing symptoms of a leaking brain aneurysm while working at the residence of a client on Oct. 21, 2010. She subsequently fell several times, during which it was believed she may have hit her head, and she lost consciousness. By Oct. 30, 2010, her symptoms from became more pronounced as her speech became sparse or telegraphic in nature. Thus, when Segovia arrived at the emergency room, she presented with symptoms of weakness/dizziness and headaches. A CT scan of the brain was allegedly erroneously interpreted as negative by a radiologist at the hospital. As such, Segovia was discharged on Oct. 31, 2010 with a diagnosis of acute blunt head trauma and acute cervical strain. Segovia’s speech and comprehension deteriorated the next day. She could not speak or use the bathroom, and she was observed to be staring and unable to interact with others. As a result, she was taken back to the E.R. on Nov. 1, 2010, with a change in mental status from her previous visit. In addition to her complaints of headaches and dizziness, she presented with a number of new neurologic deficits that were not present on her previous visit, including suffering from aphasia (inability to speak), being unable to follow some commands, having urinary incontinence, having left facial asymmetry, exhibiting confusion, and being unable to recognize her family. The E.R. notes reiterated that Segovia was seen two days earlier with a negative CT scan after having a fall. However, the original CT scan of the head was not actually reviewed, and her EKG, Accu-Chek for blood sugar, and other laboratory studies were all within normal limits. A work-up was also said to be positive for barbiturates, but the actual levels of barbiturates were unknown. Thus, an emergency room physician noted that the change in behavior was due to an altered mental status related to a side effect of barbiturates with a history of blunt head injury. As a result, Segovia was discharged at approximately 2 a.m. on Nov. 2, 2010. Segovia’s family took her to another local hospital on Nov. 3, 2010, during which a CT scan was performed and showed multiple infarcts in the distribution of the left middle cerebral artery and left anterior cerebral artery. There were also some areas of abnormal attenuation noted in the right anterior cerebral artery. An MRI scan of the brain was then performed on Nov. 4, 2010, and it gave the impression of acute infarcts involving multiple vascular territories, as noted in the left anterior and middle cerebral artery distribution, implying an embolic cause of infarcts. Thus, Segovia remained hospitalized from Nov. 3, 2010 to Nov. 10, 2010. No lumbar puncture was performed, and the discharge diagnosis was multiple cryptogenic emboli. Segovia sued the initial hospital, that hospital’s treating radiologist, and the hospital’s emergency room physician. Segovia alleged that the defendants failed to diagnose and treat her leaking aneurysm and that these failures constituted medical malpractice. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that the radiologist should have recognized that the brain scan was positive for a leaking aneurysm. Counsel also contended that the E.R. physician should have recognized that Segovia’s symptoms were positive for a leaking aneurysm. Counsel further contended that in the very least, the E.R. physician should have performed a repeat of Segovia’s CT scan, obtained further history from the family, obtained a neurological consultation to explain Segovia’s deteriorated neurologic status, obtained a quantitative toxicological screen, or performed a lumbar puncture. In addition, plaintiff’s counsel asserted that had Segovia’s leaking aneurysm been diagnosed on either her October 30th or November 1st visits to the hospital, the leaking aneurysm would have been coiled and Segovia would not have suffered the permanent brain damage that she lives with today., Segovia sustained a ruptured aneurysm after an initial prodromal leak that occurred on Oct. 21, 2010. The damage caused by this aneurysm became permanent and irreversible by approximately Nov. 1, 2010. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that as a result of the defendants’ failure to timely diagnose the aneurysm prior to Nov. 1, 2010, Segovia sustained a destruction of the normal brain anatomy with volume loss appreciated through the left lateral ventricle and scar tissue in the left, middle cerebral artery distribution and proximal, posterior, left parietal region, as well as some evidence of infarction over the right orbital frontal region. Counsel maintained that this destruction caused permanent brain damage that resulted in a loss of cognitive functioning, speech dysfunction, difficulty with comprehension and spontaneous speech, and a loss of the ability for Segovia to care for herself. Counsel also maintained that Segovia has impairments of behavioral control with a loss of judgment and ability to abstract concepts. Plaintiff’s counsel further maintained that Segovia’s ability to modulate her emotional responses has been significantly impaired, and that Segovia has difficulty with motor coordination and functioning. In addition, counsel maintained that Segovia has significantly impaired verbal comprehension and has inconsistent responses to simple statements. Thus, plaintiff’s counsel sought to have Segovia recover $10 million in future medical care and lost income, as well as recovery damages for Segovia’s pain and suffering.