On Dec. 13, 2011, plaintiff Toby Bradley, 66, a tax consultant and realtor, was admitted to Santa Barbara Cottage Hospital, in Santa Barbara, to treat her previously diagnosed narrow aortic valve by undergoing an aortic valve replacement surgery. Bradley requested that a porcine valve be implanted inside her aortic root, and the operation was to be performed by Dr. Phillip West, a cardiothoraic surgeon. During the surgery, West determined that Bradley, who weighed 264-pounds and had a large body habitus, had a very small aortic root. As a result, West decided intra-operatively to implant a mechanical valve, instead of a porcine tissue valve. Six months after the procedure, Bradley reported shortness of breath and exercise intolerance. She subsequently presented to her cardiologist, Dr. Thomas Watson, who performed an echocardiogram. The diagnostic test determined that there was a periventricular leak. As a result, Watson treated the leak with conservative therapy, but Bradley’s condition did not improve. Thus, in 2012, Bradley presented to another cardiologist for a second opinion, and that cardiologist recommended that she undergo urgent/immediate cardiac catheterization. The catheterization identified a 30-percent dehiscence of the suture lining/line around the mechanical aortic valve that was previously implanted by West. As a result, she underwent surgery with another cardiologist later that month, and the mechanical valve was removed and replaced with a porcine tissue valve. Bradley sued West; Santa Barbara Cottage Hospital; Watson; and Watson’s medical office, Santa Barbara Cardiovascular Medical Group Inc. Bradley alleged that West negligently performed the aortic valve replacement surgery and that the hospital was liable for West’s actions. She also alleged that Watson failed to timely and appropriately treat the periventricular leak and the medial group was liable for Watson’s actions. In addition, she alleged that the defendants’ actions constituted medical malpractice. Bradley contended that West breached the standard of care by implanting a mechanical value when a tissue value should have been placed. She specifically claimed that before undergoing surgery, she instructed West to insert a porcine tissue valve into the aortic root. Bradley also contended that West deviated from the standard of care and performed below the professional/medical standard of care by suturing the valve into place, which caused the valve to dehisce 30 percent. Bradley further contended that her periventricular leak was an urgent situation, that the leak required immediate cardiac catheterization, followed by an immediate valve re-operation, but that Watson failed to do that. She claimed that, instead, Watson delayed the diagnosis of the 30-percent valve dehiscence and re-operation by approximately four months, resulting in permanent/irreversible right ventricular hypertrophy and damage, requiring medication. West’s counsel contended that the decision to use a mechanical valve was made intra-operatively and that it was mandated by Bradley’s aortic root and its mismatch with her large body habitus. He argued that because the mechanical valve did not break down at its suture line for six months after the initial surgery, it showed that the valve was well implanted and that the valve’s dehiscence was not caused by the December 2011 surgery. Watson’s counsel contended that when the periventricular leak was detected, it had been six months since the December 2011 surgery, and that Bradley’s vital signs were stable. Thus, he argued that the situation was not medically urgent. Watson’s counsel also contended that the standard of medical care was met when Watson provided conservative medical treatment as an alternative to surgical intervention. He further contended that when Bradley’s condition did not improve, it was then reasonable to proceed with cardiac catheterization, followed by the surgical replacement of the valve., Bradley suffered a periventricular leak, resulting in shortness of breath and exercise intolerance. She ultimately presented to another cardiologist for a second opinion in 2012 and underwent an urgent/immediate cardiac catheterization, which identified a 30-percent dehiscence of the suture lining. As a result, she underwent surgery with another cardiologist later that month, during which the mechanical valve was removed and replaced with a porcine tissue valve. Bradley claimed that despite the surgeries, she is left constantly fatigued and continues to have poor exercise tolerance. She also claimed that she is permanently short of breath and that she cannot walk more than half a block. Thus, Bradley sought recovery of past medical expenses, damages for her past pain and suffering, and damages for her future pain and suffering.