Beginning in 2010, the plaintiffs, a 9-year-old student and a 10-year-old student, were molested in a classroom on the campus of Telfair Elementary School, in Pacoima. The students claimed that during the 2010-2011 school year, they were molested multiple times by teacher Paul Chapel III while in his classroom. Chapel, now 54, is serving a 25-year criminal sentence imposed in 2012, after he pleaded no contest tocommitting lewd acts with seven girls and six boys, all under the age of 14. The two students sued Los Angeles Unified School District, Telfair Elementary School, Superintendent John Deasy, and Principal Alfonso Jimenez. The students alleged that the defendants were negligent in the hiring, supervision, and retention of Chapel. Prior to the start of trial, the Los Angeles Unified School District admitted liability. Thus, the matter proceeded to trial on the issues of whether the school district’s conduct was a substantial factor in causing the students’ damages and if so, the amount of the students’ damages., The two students were sexually assaulted multiple times during the 2010-2011 school year. As a result, they have been undergoing psychotherapeutic counseling since 2013. The students, now 13 and 14 years old, claimed that they continue with the therapy and will need it on an intermittent basis, specifically at important milestones in their lives and when incidents of histories related to abuse arise. Thus, plaintiffs’ counsel asked the jury to award each student $5 million or more for their special and general damages, including loss of earnings, vocational rehabilitation, and medical expenses. Counsel contended that the students’ medical care alone was valued at $2.75 million per boy. Defense counsel contended that both boys had unrelated, pre-existing attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorders and that the boys responded well to psychotherapy related to their abuse, while they continued to receive treatment for their ongoing ADHD-related issues. Counsel also contended that both boys were doing well in school and that the younger plaintiff currently attends a magnet school. In addition, defense counsel argued that the plaintiffs’ claims for loss of earning capacity and future care was speculative. Thus, defense counsel argued that the boys should only each receive about $500,000.