On the early morning of Dec. 26, 2008, plaintiff Andrew Mattingly, 37, a mover, was arrested by San Francisco police officers Milen S. Banegas and Conroy Tam, in the area of 19th and Folsom streets, and charged with being drunk in public and resisting arrest. Later in the day, Mattingly was transported from jail to the emergency room, where he was diagnosed with a fractured left ulna. Mattingly sued the City and County of San Francisco, Banegas, and Tam for excessive force. His counsel dismissed Tam from the case prior to trial. Mattingly contended that on the evening of Dec. 25, 2008, he was at a bar, which he left shortly after midnight. He claimed that while walking home, he was stopped by officers Banegas and Tam for no reason. He claimed that after Banegas had placed him in handcuffs, he told the female officer “nice rack” out of frustration. Mattingly claimed that in response to the comment, Banegas yanked his left arm with the handcuffs, causing his left ulna to fracture. He claimed that the injury was an act of excessive force. The defendants contended that the reality of the incident was far different from what Mattingly had claimed. They claimed that Mattingly was clearly drunk when he left the bar at about 11:30 p.m., and that after midnight, he violently assaulted three innocent people, two of whom called 911 and provided a precise description of Mattingly, including his age, height, weight, race, clothing, hair and direction of travel. The defendants claimed that Mattingly’s whereabouts between the time he left the bar and assaulted the three victims is unknown. Banegas and Tam claimed that they responded to the 911 calls within a minute and, with the assistance of one of the victims, spotted Mattingly less than two blocks away, so drunk that he could not stand up without the help of a fence. The officers claimed that Mattingly was handcuffed without incident. The officers claimed that Mattingly unsuccessfully attempted to blame Banegas for the broken arm. Defense counsel, through their injury biomechanics expert, claimed that it was physically impossible for the alleged act of pulling up on handcuffs to have caused an isolated ulnar fracture. They claimed that such an injury is, however, consistent with Mattingly striking his arm on a sidewalk or some other solid object. Defense counsel further argued that Mattingly was not a credible witness, as he repeatedly changed his story to fit the physical evidence. For example, he originally claimed that Banegas used his body to slam him head-first to the ground after breaking his arm, but later backed off of that testimony when a booking photo revealed only a tiny scrape on Mattingly’s forehead. Mattingly also claimed that Banegas caused the fracture by twisting his wrist, but later changed his story when he realized that a twisting motion would have caused a different type of fracture. , Mattingly was taken to the emergency room, where he was diagnosed with a transverse fracture of his left, non-dominant ulna. After spending two weeks in a cast, he underwent open reduction, internal fixation surgery, with the insertion of hardware. He followed up with two to three months of physical therapy. Mattingly contended that he still experiences some pain and weakness in cold weather, and that the only future treatment he will seek is hardware removal surgery. He claimed four months of missed work following the incident, and that he was restricted from activities such as surfing, mountain biking and snowboarding, which he is now wary of engaging in. Mattingly claimed approximately $30,000 in past medical costs, and asked the jury for roughly $25,000 in total damages, plus punitive damages. Defense counsel contended that Mattingly’s fracture was not caused by any force by Banegas, but rather was caused by Mattingly sometime before he was apprehended by police. Their injury biomechanics expert testified that the transverse fracture could not have been caused the way Mattingly described it (Banegas yanking his arm upward in handcuffs). Defense counsel argued that Mattingly’s claim for past medical costs and future medical costs were exaggerated and inflated for the purpose of the lawsuit.