On Dec. 2, 2013, plaintiff Natasha Walker, 35, an assistant cashier for Costco, underwent arthroscopic surgery on her right knee to address a meniscal tear. The surgery was performed by Dr. Ronny Ghazal, an orthopedic surgeon, at Advanced Ambulatory Surgical Center, in Redlands. Walker previously injured her right knee while dancing on Sept. 10, 2013. She subsequently consulted with Ghazal a week later and was referred for an MRI, which was consistent with the diagnosis of a torn meniscus. During a clinic visit on Nov. 12, 2013, Ghazal advised Walker that, upon evaluation, he noticed evidence of a lateral subluxation of the patella, which was likely the generator of Walker’s pain and disability. Ghazal stated that he could perform a lateral release during arthrosporic surgery to correct the subluxation. Walker agreed to the arthroscopic surgery to address the meniscus tear, but she stated she did not want a lateral release, as it would require her to be off of work for weeks and she could not afford to lose time from work, or possibly lose her job. Ghazal documented Walker’s decision and concerns in his clinic note, and Walker allegedly signed a consent form for the meniscus surgery. During the surgery, no meniscal tear could be identified, but the lateral subluxation of the patella was confirmed. As a result, Ghazal performed a lateral release. Walker sued Ghazal; Ghazal’s practice and an orthopedic group, Arrowhead Orthopedics; and Advanced Ambulatory Surgery Center. Advanced Ambulatory Surgery Center was ultimately dismissed from the case without prejudice. In addition, San Bernardino Medical Orthopaedic Group Inc. was added as a defendant, and Arrowhead Orthopedics was removed as a defendant, after it was determined that San Bernardino Medical Orthopaedic Group was doing business as Arrowhead Orthopedics. Walker alleged that Ghazal did not have consent to perform the lateral release, as reflected by his clinic note. Defense counsel contended the consent that Walker signed also stated that Ghazal had the authority to perform any procedure that he deemed was in the best interest of the patient based on an evaluation at surgery, whether the condition was known or unknown prior to surgery. However, Walker testified that she specifically stated at the time she signed the two consent forms, which allegedly only listed consent for the arthroscopic meniscus surgery, that she was not consenting to a lateral release. Ghazal nonetheless claimed that Walker consented to any procedure deemed necessary based on the findings at surgery when she signed the consent form. The defense’s orthopedic surgery expert opined that Walker would not have improved without the lateral release. Defense counsel noted that plaintiff’s counsel made a motion in limine to preclude the defense from offering expert witness testimony on the issue of informed consent. The motion was based on the ground that the only cause of action was battery arising from the performance of a surgical procedure without consent, which does not require medical testimony. Judge Thomas Garza ultimately agreed that expert witness testimony on the issue of consent was irrelevant and precluded the defense from offering any expert witness testimony on the issue of consent., Walker alleged that she sustained a permanent injury from the lateral release, which manifested in constant pain, quadriceps atrophy, and weakness in the leg. She also alleged she developed back and left knee issues secondary to altered gait that appeared in the months after the surgery. To the date of trial, Walker’s treatment consisted primarily of multiple sessions of physical therapy. Walker was off of work for two years and she claimed she cannot return to work as a cashier. The plaintiff’s orthopedic surgery expert opined that Walker would have to retrain for a sedentary job due to noticeable knee pain. Thus, Walker sought recovery of between $500,000 and $690,000 for her past and future loss of earnings, and an unspecified amount of noneconomic damages for her past and future pain and suffering. Defense counsel argued that Walker was not harmed by the surgery and that Walker actually benefited from the procedure. The defense’s orthopedic surgery expert opined that the pain in Walker’s knee was most likely referred pain from a torn labrum in her hip, unassociated with the surgery.