On Feb. 17, 2012, plaintiff Juan Perez, 40, a laborer working for The 54 Construction Co., was erecting a wall when it fell over and struck him on the right side of his head. He claimed to his head and left shoulder. Perez filed a workers’ compensation claim against his employer, The 54 Construction Co.; the workers’ compensation carrier, Companion Property & Casualty Group; and the administrator of the insurance, Intercare Holdings Insurance Services. Perez brought a claim against the companies in an attempt to collect workers’ compensation benefits., Perez claimed that he suffered a traumatic brain injury and a subsequent struck, which resulted in left-sided weakness. Following the accident, Perez was intubated and transferred by paramedics to UC Davis Medical Center, in Sacramento. He required right posterior fossa retrosigmoid burr holes and a right frontotemporoparietal craniotomy for evacuation of epidural hematomas. He also underwent a placement of a left, frontal, external ventricular drain. He then underwent a right craniectomy, a subtemporal decompression, and an expansile duraplasty on Feb. 23, 2012. Four days later, he had a tracheotomy placed. During his hospitalization, Perez was ventilator dependent, and his recovery was complicated by persistent fevers and infections. He also suffered thrombi of the left and right basilic veins, a thrombus of the right cephalic vein, and thrombosis of the left cephalic vein. As a result, he suffered a stroke, resulting in weakness of the left, upper extremity and shoulder. Approximately three years after the accident, on Feb. 27, 2015, Perez underwent a second cranioplasty at Pomona Valley Hospital Medical Center, in Pomona, to repair the right temporalis muscle to address his right temporal defect. Perez claimed that he suffers from cognitive impairment; an impaired ability to swallow; non-focal weakness, with the left side being weaker than the right; and limited mobility. He alleged that as a result, he requires ongoing supervision at home, as he is unsafe to be left alone due to the cognitive deficits secondary to his traumatic brain injury. The defendants disputed the nature and extent of Perez’s . They also contended that Perez was not 100 percent permanently and totally disabled and that Perez did not require home health care.