On Sept. 23, 2009, plaintiff LaSharrell Rhoden, 39, a beautician suffering from long-standing issues with pelvic pain due to the presence of ovarian cysts, presented to Dr. Harold Peart, an obstetrician/gynecologist, to undergo a bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy after finding no pain relief with conservative treatment. During the procedure, extensive adhesions were noted to be present, complicating the surgery. As a result, the oophorectomy could not be performed and portions of the cysts were removed after they decompressed. However, when one of the cysts was found adherent to the appendix, an appendectomy was required. The bowel was then inspected and noted to be intact at the time of closing. Rhoden was ultimately discharged home after Peart determined that she had been stable for three days after the surgery. Approximately 32 hours later, Rhoden was rushed to an emergency room, where she was determined to be leaking fecal matter from her surgical incision and in septic shock. A bowel laceration was subsequently identified and repaired. Rhoden sued Peart. She alleged that the doctor failed to consult with other physicians and failed to appropriately treat her condition, and that these failures constituted medical malpractice. Rhoden’s counsel contended that Peart failed to pre-operatively consult with a general surgeon or gynecologic oncologist, failed to pre-operatively provide an appropriate bowel preparation, failed to intra-operatively perform an appropriate inspection of the bowel, failed to intra-operatively consult a general surgeon or gynecologic oncologist, and failed to complete a bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy. Plaintiff’s counsel also contended that Peart breached the standard of care by discharging Rhoden three days after the operation even though Rhoden claimed that her incision was leaking bowel content even before her discharge, which thereby made the discharge inappropriate. Peart contended that he complied with the standard of care in all respects. He claimed there was no reason to consult with a general surgeon or a gynecologic oncologist pre-operatively, as the surgery in question was primarily a gynecologic surgery and it was impossible to predict how complicated the surgery would be. Peart also claimed that the bowel preparation was appropriate and complied with the standard of care, and that the bowel was appropriately inspected intra-operatively and no injury was apparent. He alleged that the bowel injury was a partial thickness laceration that was incapable of being appreciated at the time of the surgery. He further alleged that there was no reason to call a general surgeon or a gynecologic oncologist intra-operatively, as there was never a concern the bowel had been injured during the surgery in question. In addition, Peart claimed that the failure to complete the bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy was appropriate and in compliance with the standard of care based upon his use of medical judgment and the risks associated with completing such a procedure. Finally, Peart contended that the discharge of Rhoden on post-operative day three was in compliance with the standard of care, as Rhoden was stable at all junctures preceding the discharge., Rhoden was rushed to the emergency room at Hollywood Presbyterian Hospital on Sept. 28, 2009, approximately 32 hours after Peart discharged her, and was found to be leaking fecal matter from her surgical incision and in septic shock. A bowel laceration was subsequently identified and repaired during an immediate life-saving surgery to stop the bowel from leaking. Rhoden was in a coma essentially upon her arrival at the hospital due to the septic shock, and she remained on a ventilator thereafter. On Oct. 5, 2009, which was 12 days following the subject surgery performed by Peart, Rhoden underwent an ileostomy, which is a surgical opening constructed by bringing part of the small intestine out onto the surface of the skin so that intestinal waste could be passed out of the body and collected in an external pouching system. Rhoden remained admitted to Hollywood Presbyterian until Nov. 23, 2009, during which time she showed neurological improvement, came out of the coma and was taken off the ventilator. On Dec. 4, 2009, Rhoden was readmitted to the hospital and remained there until Dec.15, 2009. She then was readmitted from Jan. 28, 2010, through Feb. 1, 2010. Finally, Rhoden was readmitted from Feb. 12, 2010, through March 4, 2010, during which a reversal of the ileostomy was performed on Feb.18, 2010. Following many months of inpatient treatment, Rhoden improved and ultimately returned to baseline. She claimed that she has not returned to work, but acknowledged that she only periodically worked doing hair out of her house pre-incident. She also acknowledged that she is now doing quite well, with no evidence of neurological damage. However, Rhoden claimed that she still suffers ongoing pelvic pain, which has never resolved. Thus, Rhoden sought recovery of $340,000 in damages, consisting of $250,000 in general damages/pain and suffering along with the $90,000 MediCal lien.