On Feb. 9, 2009, plaintiff Rita Skora, 64, underwent surgery to repair urethra hypermobility. Skora initially began seeing Dr. Red Alinsod for gynecological care and treatment, including treatment of urinary incontinence, in April 2007. Skora was diagnosed with stress and urgency incontinence, cystocele and rectocele. Alinsod, a board certified obstetrician and gynecologist specializing in urogynecology, pelvic floor reconstructive surgery, and aesthetic pelvic surgery, ultimately determined that Skora required surgery. As a result, Alinsod performed a surgical repair of Skora’s urethra hypermobility by placing a mid-urethral mesh sling. Alinsod also repaired Skora’s cystocele with the placement of pelvic mesh and performed native tissue repair of the rectocele. Following the surgery, Skora had complaints of pain in her vagina, frequent urinary tract and bladder infections, dyspareunia (pain upon sex), pelvic and hip pain, and a return of her urinary incontinence. She ultimately discontinued care with Alinsod in December 2012. Skora later had the mid-urethral mesh sling removed. Skora sued Alinsod and his medical office, South Coast Urogynecology Inc. Skora alleged that Alinsod failed to properly treat her condition and that this failure constituted medical malpractice. Skora also alleged that South Coast was liable for Alinsod’s actions. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that Alinsod should not have offered surgery for Skora’s urinary incontinence problems without first placing her on non-surgical/medical management of weight reduction, pelvic floor exercises, physical therapy, bio feedback, and medications. Counsel also contended that had such medical management been employed, Skora would not have had the post-operative complications associated with pelvic mesh products, which were the subjects of U.S. Food and Drug Administration health notices in 2008 and 2011. Plaintiff’s counsel asserted that there was a delay of more than three years in Alinsod diagnosing Skora’s post-operative complaints, which were due to the mesh sling eroding into the urethra. Counsel also asserted that there was a lack of informed consent regarding the risks and alternatives to the use of mesh products. In addition, plaintiff’s counsel asserted that Alinsod breached his fiduciary duty by failing to disclose to Skora that he had a financial relationship with the mesh manufacturer, Mpathy, for which Alinsod performed consultation work and taught other doctors surgical techniques in using its mesh products, and from which Alinsod received monetary compensation along with stock options. Alinsod contended that he acted within the standard of care in offering Skora the options of medical management, surgical repair (with or without mesh), expectant management, or no treatment and that Skora chose the definitive treatment of surgery with the placement of mesh products. Alinsod also claimed that he disclosed to Skora his teaching and consulting work for the mesh manufacturer and that he chose the mesh products because they were the most effective and safest to use. Lastly, Alinsod claimed that the stock options did not have any value and that, as such, he held no financial interest in the manufacturer., Skora ultimately had the mid-urethral mesh sling removed by a UCLA physician in October 2013. Skora alleged the subject surgery with mesh products caused her three years of physical pain and mental suffering, as she had frequent bladder and urinary tract infections, a return of urinary incontinence, pelvic and hip pain, and dyspareunia. She claimed that she had to undergo surgery to remove the mesh sling that allegedly eroded into the urethra. She also claimed that her physical pain and mental suffering will continue into the future, although they have improved since the sling removal surgery in October 2013. Thus, Skora sought recovery of about $3,000 in past medical expenses and about $20,000 in additional expenses, such as hiring a cleaner for three years to help her maintain her house.