On the morning of Oct. 14, 2007, plaintiff Nathaniel Paige, 6, was dining in the outdoor area of the (now closed) Burger King, in Glendale, when he a table top separated from its base. As a result, the table top fell onto Nathaniel’s left hand, pinning his hand between the ground and the table top. Nathaniel, through his guardian ad litem, sued the operator of Glendale Burger King, RP Restaurants, and the franchisor, Burger King Corp. Nathaniel’s guardian alleged that the defendants failed to properly repair and/or maintain the table, creating a dangerous condition. Burger King Corp. was ultimately dismissed from the case prior to the trial, and the matter continued against the franchisee, RP Restaurants. RP Restaurants ultimately admitted liability, and the matter proceeded to trial on the issues of medical causation and damages., Nathaniel sustained a fracture of the index finger on his left, dominant hand. The fracture healed. However, he claimed that he has had continuous pain and lack of function in his left hand since the accident. (Nathaniel is currently a 14-year-old student.) The plaintiff’s case-in-chief consisted of Nathaniel’s testimony, and the testimony of his mother and grandparents. The plaintiff’s treating orthopedic hand specialist and an occupational therapist also testified. The plaintiff’s treating hand specialist opined that Nathaniel’s complaints of pain are due to damage to the soft tissue of the left hand. However, he testified that he could not determine whether the pain was emanating from the muscle, nerves, tendons, or some other soft tissue. In addition, he ultimately had to admit that no diagnostic test (i.e. nerve conductions studies, MRIs, etc.) could objectively verify the source of Nathaniel’s subjective complaints of pain. Plaintiff’s counsel asked the jury to award Nathaniel nearly $1.4 million in total damages. During the defense’s case-in-chief, the plaintiff’s treating neurologist testified that there was no neurologic basis for Nathaniel’s subjective complaints of pain, and the plaintiff’s pediatrician testified that he performed examinations of Nathaniel’s hand at various points in time, but that the examinations were normal. Thus, the plaintiff’s pediatrician did not have an explanation for Nathaniel’s subjective complaints of pain. The defense’s retained hand specialist testified that the fracture was minor and had healed within six weeks. He explained that any concurrent soft-tissue injury would have healed along with the bone and that all of the testing and physical examinations did not explain Nathaniel’s subjective complaints of pain. Thus, he concluded that the injury at Burger King was not the cause of Nathaniel’s continuing complaints. Defense counsel noted that although Nathaniel’s left hand was his dominant hand prior to the injury, Nathaniel learned to use his right hand following the accident.