On May 2, 2013, plaintiff Vanessa Manuel, a part-time registered nurse for sister companies Heart to Heart Care Inc., a hospice care agency, and Gentle Hands Inc., a home health care agency, was offered full-time hours working shifts at both agencies. That same day, she reported to the Director of Nursing that the social worker at Heart to Heart Care was unlicensed, in violation of state law. Five days later, on May 7, 2013, Manuel was fired from both companies via a text message. She thereafter reported the violation to the Department of Public Health, which investigated the matter and issued a statement of deficiency to Heart to Heart Care, confirming that it was in violation of state law for having a social worker that did not have a master’s degree license and that saw patients. Manuel sued Heart to Heart Care Inc. and Gentle Hands Inc. She alleged that the agencies, which were owned by the same family, wrongfully terminated her in violation of public policy, specifically in violation of Labor Code § 1102.5, which grants protections to whistleblowers. Prior to trial, Manuel waived medical, general and special damages, and the court granted defense counsel’s motion for a directed verdict, dismissing Manuel’s third cause of action, which alleged a violation of Health and Safety Code § 278.5, on the ground that neither defendant was a health care facility with patient accommodations. Heart to Heart Care and Gentle Hands claimed that they had not fired Manuel, but rather she had quit. Defense counsel contended that Manuel worked less than 90 days in a part-time casual, temporary, at will, on-call, probationary capacity and that she was employed by Heart to Heart Care and loaned to Gentle Hands for a couple of days during the Feb. 15, 2013 to May 7, 2013 period. Counsel contended that Manuel also worked at other part-time jobs while working as a registered nurse. Defense counsel further contended that on May 2, 2013, Manuel was offered full-time hours by Gentle Hands and that, as a result, she quit her part-time jobs at another home health care agency and Heart to Heart Care. Defense counsel argued that Heart to Heart Care was unaware that the social worker, who had worked as a social worker for other health care agencies for years, was unlicensed. Counsel contended that on May 7, 2013, Manuel was placed on-call by Heart to Heart Care via a text, but that Gentle Hands revoked the offer of full-time employment to Manuel for budgetary reasons before she began full-time employment at Gentle Hands and prior to her completion of her employment application at Gentle Hands. The messages were texted to Manuel by the director of nursing, who confirmed the information in a later telephonic conference. Counsel contended that it was only after that when Manuel reported the social worker violation to the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health and supplied the Department of Health with confidential information from the social worker’s personnel file. Counsel noted that the Department of Health investigated the matter and issued a statement of deficiency to Heart to Heart Care, confirming that Heart to Heart Care was in violation of law for having an unlicensed social worker seeing patients. However, defense counsel argued that Manuel did not complain about Gentle Hands and that the Department of Health did not investigate Gentle Hands. Defense counsel noted that Manuel did not claim to be a whistleblower against Gentle Hands. Counsel also asserted that Manuel falsely claimed that the defendants were “sister corporations,” but that Heart to Heart Care and Gentle Hands were, and are, separate corporations with separate boards of directors, minute books, bank accounts, licenses, and leases. Heart to Heart Care claimed that it had not fired Manuel because she had quit. Heart to Heart Care witnesses testified that Manuel was a part-time, casual, temporary, at-will, on-call, probationary employee and that they would have fired Manuel due to budgetary business reasons, including the facts that she was being paid too much for patient visits, that she had to be driven to patients’ appointments at the expense of Heart to Heart Care, that she had emotional problems, and that she had falsified records while on the job. In addition, the defendants claimed that they were unaware of Manuel’s seizure disorder, which was disclosed at trial, but that they were aware that she had emotional problems. In response, plaintiff’s counsel contended that there was fraudulent, created after-the-fact, documentation produced by the defendants that attempted to create excuses for Manuel’s termination. Counsel argued that the defense’s contentions were based largely on the documents that the defendants had created during litigation and that metadata reports from the computer supported Manuel’s allegation that the documents were created during litigation. Counsel also argued that, even if the documents had been created at the time, each of the allegations contained within the documents were false and/or unsupported by any corroboration other than the defendants’ witnesses’ testimony. However, the defense witnesses testified that the relevant computer was serviced and repaired a number of times and, therefore, the metadata was not reliable., Manuel had quit her part-time employment at another hospice/home health agency and Heart to Heart Care upon verbally accepting the full-time employment with Gentle Hands. However, she was able to go back to work in a part-time capacity at the prior employer within a week of terminating her employment. She found other part-time hospice/home health work shortly thereafter and, within two weeks, was working full-time hours between several jobs. Therefore, she did not claim any loss of earnings. However, Manuel has a well-controlled seizure disorder and she claimed that as a result, the types of nursing jobs available to her are limited, essentially leaving her only with case management and quality assurance jobs in the home health industry. Specifically, she claimed that there are very few full-time positions available to her and that, two years later, she has only been able to find part-time work and is currently working five different jobs throughout Los Angeles County. She also claimed that since she is unable to drive due to her seizure disorder, she now spends an average of more than 10 extra hours a week commuting. Thus, Manuel explained to the jury that her termination from full-time employment at an agency about 15 minutes from her home has caused her a great inconvenience and mental anguish due to the significant amount of time she has to spend away from her children and husband to commute to her several different jobs. Plaintiff’s counsel claimed that defense counsel tried to use Manuel’s seizure disorder against her by claiming that she had a duty to disclose the disorder to the defendants in the application process, that Manuel had concealed it from them, and that they would have fired her from the job had they known. However, plaintiff’s counsel produced evidence of two occasions where Manuel’s primary care physician had performed a history and physical, and had approved Manuel for unrestricted work duties. Defense counsel noted that Manuel had worked multiple part-time jobs between 2008 and 2014. Counsel also noted that Manuel stated at trial that she was earning between $40 and $50 hourly at her new employers and, therefore, Manuel did not claim any loss of earnings. Defense counsel added that Manuel’s husband was employed as an I.T. consultant for a law firm that investigated the social worker. Defense counsel contended that Manuel has a seizure disorder that she intentionally failed to disclose to the California Board of Registered Nursing in 2005, Heart to Heart Care, and Gentle Hands in 2013. Counsel also contended that Manuel admitted that her seizure disorder would create a risk to other drivers, if she were to drive, but that she inconsistently denied that her seizure disorder created an unreasonable risk to patients. Counsel further contended that the plaintiff’s nursing witness testified that Manuel did not have to disclose her seizure disorder and that a medical professional with Hepatitis C did not have to disclose the Hepatitis C. Defense counsel contended that although Manuel testified to the significant amount of time she has to spend away from her children and husband, included commuting to her several different part-time jobs via buses, Manuel admitted that she had previously traveled to a part-time job in Riverside by bus and train, and other multiple part-time jobs by bus. Thus, counsel argued that there were no material changes in Manuel’s bus riding between multiple part-time jobs and that Manuel offered no evidence of emotional, medical or general damages. Further, defense counsel contended that although plaintiff’s counsel produced evidence of two occasions where Manuel’s primary care physician had performed a history and physical, and had generally approved Manuel for unrestricted work duties, the physician did not acknowledge or disclose any knowledge of Manuel’s seizure disorder. Counsel also contended that the plaintiff’s nursing witness testified that Manuel admitted that her seizure disorder could not always be controlled with medication. Thus, defense counsel argued that Manuel’s seizure disorder created an unreasonable risk to patients. As to the plaintiff’s claim of punitive damages, the defense’s witnesses testified that Heart to Heart Care and Gentle Hands are heavily indebted close corporations, have no cash reserves, lack ability to pay punitive damages, and have no net worth. Defense counsel also argued that the defendants’ alleged acts were not reprehensible and that any amount of punitive damages would be excessive and unreasonably punitive.