On Aug. 20, 2013, plaintiff Richard Frame, 53, who was out of work on disability, underwent a posterolateral spinal fusion and decompressive laminectomy at Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian, in Newport Beach. The procedure was a co-surgeon operation performed by Dr. Todd Peters and Dr. Burak Ozgur, both spine surgeons. The surgery consisted of a posterolateral spinal fusion at the C5-6, C6-7, C7-T1, T1-2, T2-3, T3-4 and T4-5 levels with a decompressive laminectomy at T1, a 50 percent decompressive laminectomy at T2, and a 50 percent decompressive laminectomy at C7. Posterior hardware and posterolateral mass screws were also implanted at the C5, C6 and C7 levels, and posterior pedicle screws were implanted at the T2, T3 and T4 levels. The surgery was noted to be a difficult case, requiring twice the usual operating time and the need for significant operative devices, including a microscope, stereotactic navigation, and operative neurologic monitoring. Following the surgery, Frame remained at Hoag for post-operative care and pain management. While hospitalized, he received pain medication for his stated pain levels, which consistently ranged from an eight to nine out of 10. The pain management team consisted of physicians and a physician assistant Mark Schwartz. On Aug. 25, 2013, Frame’s oxygen saturation levels were noted to be on the lower side, and on Aug. 26, 2013, his oxygenation decreased into the 70’s. The Rapid Response Team was subsequently called to consult, and three separate doses of Narcan were also administered over a period of approximately five hours. Shortly thereafter, Frame’s oxygen saturation levels normalized, and he became more alert and arousable throughout the remainder of his stay in the Sub-Intensive Care Unit until he was ultimately discharged on Aug. 28, 2013. It was later determined that Frame had suffered a displacement of the instrumentation screws that were implanted in his spine during his posterolateral spinal fusion surgery. He claimed he was overmedicated and not properly monitored during his postoperative pain management care, causing the need to be resuscitated. He also claimed that the actions taken during the resuscitation caused the instrumentation screws to become displaced. Frame sued Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian and Schwartz. Frame alleged that the defendants failed to properly monitor him and the administration of his medication, and were negligent in his postoperative pain management care. Plaintiff’s counsel argued that the management of Frame’s postoperative pain during the course of his hospitalization at Hoag was inappropriate. Specifically, counsel contended that Frame was kept oversedated on narcotics, which purportedly resulted in manual chest compressions to resuscitate Frame on Aug. 26, 2013. Counsel also contended that as a result of the chest compressions and/or the use of an Ambu bag for oxygen administration, which included an alleged “violent” chin/head tilt, by the Rapid Response Team, the surgically implanted spinal hardware became loose, requiring subsequent repair surgery months later. Plaintiff’s counsel further contended that the Narcan caused Frame’s violent shakes and seizures, which further caused or contributed to the loosening of the spinal hardware and loss of fixation. Hoag’s counsel argued that, at all times, Hoag’s nursing and ancillary personnel complied with the standard of care in the treatment and care of Frame during his August 2013 hospitalization. Specifically, counsel contended that the nursing staff complied with the standard of care as they properly administered the prescribed doses of medication to Frame at all times. Counsel also contended that the nursing staff, at all times, properly monitored Frame’s reaction to the medications that were prescribed and administered during his admission from Aug. 20, 2013 through the Rapid Response Team Intervention on Aug. 26, 2013, and until the time Frame was discharged from Hoag on Aug. 28, 2013. Defense counsel further argued that no action or inaction on the part of Hoag’s staff caused or contributed to the displacement of the instrumentation screws implanted in Frame’s spine during his posterolateral spinal fusion surgery on Aug. 20, 2013. Instead, it was Hoag’s counsel’s position that that the displacement of the instrumentation screws was the result of a less-than-optimal screw fixation at the C5, C6 and C7 levels during Frame’s surgery and that the rods implanted during the surgery were too stiff in comparison with the anchoring ability of the bone, which placed additional pressure on the instrumentation screws at the C5, C6 and C7 levels and contributed to the posterior displacement of the instrumentation screws. Schwartz’s counsel contended that Schwartz’s work was reviewed by supervising physicians as part of a pain management team overseeing Frame’s pain management. Thus, counsel argued that, at all times, Schwartz complied with the standard of care for pain management, as well as the standard of care for the administration and adjustments of the medication and narcotics being administered to Frame during his hospitalization at Hoag. Schwartz’s counsel also argued that the administration of the medication did not result in a “code blue” situation wherein cardiopulmonary resuscitation was administered, including the use of manual chest compressions and/or code “paddles” to revive Frame. If a chin tilt was used to assist in administration of oxygen by an Ambu bag, counsel argued, such movement had nothing to do with the loss of fixation of the patient’s spinal hardware. Additionally, Schwartz’s counsel argued that the taking of Narcan did not result in any side effect that would create the force necessary to dislodge the spinal hardware and, as such, it did not occur., Frame suffered a displacement of the instrumentation screws that were implanted in his spine during his posterolateral spinal fusion surgery. He claimed that as a result of the defendants’ alleged negligence, he was required to undergo an additional surgery on June 23, 2014 to repair the placement of the spinal instrumentation. He also claimed that he suffered emotional distress. Thus, plaintiff’s counsel asked the jury to award between $564,000 to $798,043 in special damages for the cost of the repair surgery and future medical care, as well as an additional $250,000 in non-economic damages.