On Jan. 17, 2011, plaintiff Kathleen Hunt, 17, a high school student, presented to Sharp Mary Birch Hospital for Women & Newborns, in San Diego, to undergo a laparoscopic surgery, which was performed by her gynecologist, Dr. Steven Drosman. Kathleen previously presented to Drosman with complaints of cramping and heavy bleeding during her period. Drosman suspected that Kathleen was suffering from endometriosis, and recommended that Kathleen undergo the laparoscopic surgery with cauterization of the endometriosis. During the surgery, Drosman noticed two metal staples in Kathleen’s pelvic region from a prior appendectomy. He continued with the surgery as planned. To burn the endometriosis, Drosman used a monopolar cauterization device, which utilizes an electric current that travels from the probe, to the tissue, through a patient’s body, to a return pad on the patient’s leg. The device was used within millimeters of the staples. The following day, Kathleen sought emergency treatment for pain, and doctors discovered two perforations burned into her anterior rectum. As a result, Kathleen required an emergency colectomy and was left with a colostomy bag for three months while her colon healed. Kathleen sued Drosman, alleging that Drosman’s negligent use of the cautery device during the surgery caused the holes and necessitated her colectomy. She also alleged that Drosman’s negligence constituted medical malpractice. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that the electric current traveled to the two metal staples in Kathleen’s pelvic region, causing them to heat up. Counsel further contended that this caused the tissue on Kathleen’s anterior rectum to become necrotic, resulting in the two perforations. Defense counsel maintained that the staples had nothing to do with the perforations on the anterior rectum and insisted that no staples were found near the perforations. Instead, defense counsel argued that the injury was a known complication of cauterization and that the injury can happen in the absence of negligence., Kathleen sustained two perforations burned into her anterior rectum. As a result, she required an emergency colectomy the day after Drosman’s procedure. She then spent 2.5 weeks in the hospital and was left with a colostomy bag until April 11, 2011, when she had a surgery to reattach her colon. She remained in the hospital another eight days following the takedown procedure. However, Kathleen later developed a post-operative infection at the surgical site and subsequently required IV antibiotics and weeks of wound care. Kathleen was in the middle of her senior year of high school when she had the colectomy. She claimed that without the perforations, she would have returned to her normal activities within two days of the laparoscopic surgery. She claimed that, instead, as a result of the surgeries, she was unable to graduate that June and had to give up a scholarship that she had earned. As a result, Kathleen completed her senior year via homeschooling and graduated a year later, in June 2012. While Kathleen had no long-term physical limitations, she claimed that missing out on her senior year, not getting to graduate with her friends, and being unable to participate in typical senior activities left her with emotional distress. She also claimed that she suffered from emotional distress related to the presence of the colostomy bag. Thus, Kathleen sought recovery of stipulated past medical costs, and damages for her past and future pain and suffering. Damages were not in dispute at the trial.