On April 2, 2016, plaintiffs’ decedent Lauren Ozen, 57, a psychologist, was taken to Encino Hospital Medical Center with complaints of severe abdominal pain. She arrived at 1:10 p.m., and she claimed that she had been in pain since approximately 11 a.m. Ozen was immediately seen by an emergency room doctor, who ordered a CT scan, and a radiologist reported the findings to the emergency room doctor, who contacted the on-call surgeon, Dr. Babak Moeinolmolki, at 2:37 p.m. Moeinolmolki arrived at Ozen’s bedside at approximately 3 p.m. He ordered a second CT scan with an intravenous contrast to check for a possible blood clot in the bowel artery. A different radiologist interpreted the second CT and called Moeinolmolki at 5:16 p.m. to report that there were no perforations or clots in the bowel. Moeinolmolki concluded that Ozen needed surgery and began the procedure at 6:20 p.m. During the surgery, Moeinolmolki diagnosed severe mesenteric ischemia, a condition in which bowel tissue dies as a result of insufficient blood flow. The ischemia resulted from a rare congenital defect. While Moeinolmolki was able to untwist the bowel during the surgery, it was determined that the bowel suffered an irreversible infarction. Ozen died two days later. The decedent’s widower, Michael Ozen, and her three sons, Jeremy Ozen, Daniel Ozen and David Ozen, sued Moeinolmolki and Encino Hospital. The Ozen family also sued Emergent Medical Associates, which had a contract with Encino Hospital to staff its emergency room. However, Emergent Medical was never served with the lawsuit, and Encino Hospital was dismissed prior to the trial. The family alleged that Moeinolmolki negligently delayed the decedent’s surgery and that his negligence constituted medical malpractice that led to the decedent’s death. Plaintiffs’ counsel argued that the first CT showed a high-grade bowel obstruction and that Moeinolmolki should have realized that the obstruction was likely causing mesenteric ischemia. Counsel contended that the location and size of the obstruction made it unlikely that a clot was causing the issue. Plaintiffs’ counsel maintained that since the decedent likely didn’t have a blood clot, Moeinolmolki did not need to order the second CT and that, instead, Moeinolmolki should have spoken to the radiologist who read the first CT results. Counsel also argued that once Moeinolmolki arrived at the hospital, he should have immediately taken the decedent to surgery and that even after Moeinolmolki received the results of the second CT, he did not start surgery for another hour. Per plaintiffs’ counsel, the radiologist who read the first CT scan told the ER doctor that a second CT with contrast was only necessary if the perforation needed to be further defined. The plaintiffs’ general surgery expert opined that Lauren Ozen would have survived had she undergone surgery within four to five hours of the onset of her symptoms. Plaintiffs’ counsel maintained that the delay caused the decedent’s chances of survival to drop below 50 percent. Moeinolmolki’s counsel maintained that the first CT scan was ambiguous and that a second CT scan was necessary to determine the cause of the decedent’s symptoms. Moeinolmolki claimed that he needed to know the exact etiology so that he could decide the proper procedure to perform and determine whether to bring a vascular surgeon into the operating room. Defense counsel also maintained that the radiologist who read the first CT scan thought the findings were hard to interpret and had recommended a second CT with contrast to confirm the cause of the obstruction. Defense counsel contended that the decedent’s ischemia was probably triggered 15 to 30 minutes before the onset of her symptoms at 11 a.m. and that the ischemia needed to be surgically addressed within three hours of the triggering event for her to survive. Since Moeinolmolki did not see the Lauren Ozen until 3 p.m., there was nothing he could have done to change the decedent’s outcome, defense counsel argued. Counsel further argued that there was no way to get the decedent into surgery sooner. According to defense counsel, Moeinolmolki first attempted to summon the on-call surgery team at around 3:30 p.m., but that there was no in-house surgery team available on April 2, 2016, because it was a Saturday. Counsel contended that Moeinolmolki called for an update on the surgery team’s status at 5:16 p.m., after receiving the results of the second CT scan, and that Moeinolmolki spoke directly to the anesthesiologist, who arrived at the hospital a short time later., Lauren Ozen was suffering from severe mesenteric ischemia at the time she presented to the hospital. She underwent two CT scans and was taken to surgery, during which her bowel was able to be untwisted. However, her bowel infarcted, and she went into septic shock. On April 3, 2016, Ozen was transferred to Cedars Sinai Medical Center, where she was placed under the care of another general surgeon. That doctor attempted to operate, but aborted the procedure once he determined that Ozen’s bowel had completely died. He noted that the condition was “incompatible with life.” Ozen was pronounced dead the morning of April 4, 2016. She was 57 years old, and she left behind a husband and three adult sons. Ozen’s family sought recovery of economic damages, which included funeral and burial expenses, and loss of financial support. They also sought recovery of non-economic damages as a result of Ozen’s alleged wrongful death, but any award for non-economic damages would have been capped at $250,000, pursuant to the state’s Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act. The parties stipulated to the value of the funeral and burial expenses, as well as Ozen’s annual earnings. However, there was a dispute over how much longer Ozen would have worked had she survived her surgery. Plaintiffs’ counsel argued that Ozen planned to work until she was 75. Ozen’s husband, in particular, testified that his wife had no plans to retire. Defense counsel looked at the average work life expectancy for psychologists with a Ph.D. and concluded that Ozen would have retired at age 69. As a result, the verdict sheet asked the jury to determine the decedent’s retirement age. If the jury found that Moeinolmolki was liable for Ozen’s death, the court would use that age and the decedent’s stipulated annual earnings to calculate the remainder of the economic damages award.