On Oct. 4, 2011, plaintiff Thomas Sullivan, 49, a self-employed landscape architect, fractured his femur in seven places, as well as fractured his hip and fifth metatarsal on his left foot, after falling off a 12-foot ladder while putting a tarp over an aviary in his backyard. He was subsequently brought to an emergency room, where X-rays were taken. An orthopedic trauma surgeon, Dr. Jeffrey Smith, consulted on the patient, and it was decided that surgical intervention was necessary to treat the hip and femur fractures. Smith also decided that conservative therapy on the foot fracture was appropriate. Over the next six months, Sullivan saw Smith. However, at some point, Sullivan claimed his foot was refractured. Sullivan sued Smith, alleging that Smith misdiagnosed his foot fracture and delayed treatment. He also alleged that Smith’s actions constituted medical malpractice. Sullivan claimed that the fracture to his left foot was not aligned properly, which must have caused shifting to occur. He claimed that as a result, during the following six months of care with Smith, the doctor failed to diagnose the refracture, which must have occurred during that time. Sullivan contended that if Smith re-evaluated the foot properly, the refracture would have been diagnosed and he would not have had to endure a later surgery. The plaintiff’s treating expert podiatrist, who performed the later foot surgery, testified that based upon Sullivan’s complaints of pain, Smith would have seen the refracture if Smith had appropriately evaluated the foot. Defense counsel contended that the decision-making process for the femur and hip was appropriate. Counsel also contended that the decision to conservatively treat the fifth metatarsal fracture was within the standard of care and that all post-operative care was within the standard of care, as well. Defense counsel further argued that no refracture ever occurred and that the subsequent care by the plaintiff’s podiatrist was not indicated, nor necessary. The defense’s expert orthopedic surgeon opined that all care was appropriate and within the standard of care and that there was absolutely no refracture at all. The expert also opined that the care rendered by the subsequent health provider was not necessary. Thus, the defense expert concluded that any residual pain that Sullivan experienced was due to the original trauma from the ladder fall, and not from any delay in treatment., Sullivan claimed he suffered a refracture of his left foot. In October 2012, he underwent surgical repair by his treating expert podiatrist. Sullivan claimed he needed to take time off of work, causing him to have to hire additional workers for his landscape company. He also claimed he suffers continuing foot pain, numbness, and the inability to walk distances. Thus, Sullivan sought recovery of general damages, and recovery for his loss of earnings and other incidentals. His wife, plaintiff Charlotte Sullivan, initially sought recovery for her loss of consortium. However, she was not a plaintiff at trial. Plaintiffs’ counsel asked the jury to award $330,000 in general damages for Mr. Sullivan’s pain and suffering, and $90,000 in economic losses, including loss of earnings. Defense counsel argued that there was no refracture of Mr. Sullivan’s left foot. The defense’s expert orthopedic surgeon also opined that there was no refracture and that any residual pain that Sullivan experienced was due to the original trauma from the ladder fall.