On April 17, 2009, plaintiff Remzija Husic, 32, a certified nursing assistant, underwent LASIK eye surgery by Dr. David Schanzlin at TLC Laser Eye Center in San Diego. Schanzlin was assisted by two other employees, one of whom was a laser technician that was responsible for downloading Husic’s treatment plan into the laser device and confirming the patient identity/treatment throughout the procedure. However, before the surgery, the laser technician downloaded another patient’s treatment plan into the laser being used on Husic. As a result, three to four times more corneal tissue was removed from Husic’s eyes than was intended. Husic sued the operator of TLC Laser Eye Center, Laser Eye Care of California; Schanzlin; and Schanzlin’s employer, The Regents of the University of California. He alleged that the defendants failed to properly perform the LASIK procedure and that this failure constituted medical malpractice. Schanzlin was ultimately dismissed from the case when Regents stipulated to its vicarious liability for Schanzlin’s actions. UCSD Shiley Eye Center was also initially sued, but was later dismissed when it was determined Regents was Schanzlin’s employer. Husic’s counsel contended that Schanzlin and the laser technician failed to confirm that the correct treatment was downloaded into the laser, and further failed to discover the error at various times before and during the treatment. For example, counsel contended that a patient’s name and treatment plan remain displayed on the laser’s computer monitor at all times before and during treatment, but that Schanzlin and the laser technician failed to notice that the information on the monitor was not Husic’s. During discovery, Laser Eye Care and Regents claimed that a device must have malfunctioned during the treatment. However, the defendants acknowledged that no device was taken out-of-service as a result of the botched surgery. As a result, plaintiff’s counsel amended the complaint to allege products liability claims against the manufacturer of the laser, Abbott Medical Optics Inc., and against the manufacturer of a USB flash drive that housed patients’ treatment plans, PNY Technologies Inc. Counsel also sued VISX Inc., which originally designed and manufactured the laser, and Advanced Medical Optics Inc., which acquired VISX and later changed its name to Abbott Medical Optics Inc. Discovery included the parties’ respective software engineers and device engineers analyzing the hard drives of the devices and the USB flash drive. After the investigation, various depositions and expert analysis, Husic did not oppose the manufacturing defendants’ (Abbott’s and PNY’s) motions for summary judgment, and they were dismissed from the case. Regents later settled with Husic for approximately $200,000 one month before trial. Thus, the matter proceeded to trial against Laser Eye Care of California only. Laser Eye Care of California claimed that Schanzlin was ultimately responsible for confirming the correct treatment and correct patient. Thus, its counsel argued that 90 percent of the liability should be apportioned to the surgeon and 10 percent apportioned to the laser technician., Three to four times more corneal tissue was removed from Husic’s eyes than was intended as a result of the botched laser surgery. The error was discovered three days later, and Schanzlin performed a second laser surgery, hoping to reverse the effects of overcorrection. Within three days, Husic’s vision went from nearsighted to farsighted and back to nearsighted. Husic contended that the botched laser surgery worsened the quality of her vision, causing aberrations that included blurriness, glare, sensitivity to light, shadowing and starbursts. After the laser surgeries, an optometrist fitted Husic with custom-designed hybrid contact lenses, featuring a soft-lens center and hard-lens periphery. Husic claimed that even with the contact lenses, her vision is worse than it was before the LASIK surgery. She claimed she also experiences eye dryness, which requires prescription and over-the-counter eye drops, as well as headaches due to photophobia and dryness. She also claimed she requires treatment for her headaches and medication (Advil) overuse. Husic further claimed she experiences eye pain and discomfort when exposed to bright lights. In addition, she claimed she is now socially withdrawn and no longer goes to the movies, partakes in outdoor outings, or engages in other leisure activities. Thus, Husic sought recovery of damages, including $9,106 for her past medical costs, $203,202 for her future medical costs, $27,318 for her past pain and suffering, and $418,876 for her future pain and suffering. Counsel for the Laser Eye Care of California contended that Husic’s present vision is very similar to how her vision was before the initial LASIK surgery, emphasizing that she continues to work and drive. However, defense counsel conceded that the laser treatment caused more high order aberrations, but argued that any decrease in quality of vision was minimal and supported only by Husic’s subjective descriptions. Counsel for Laser Eye Care further argued that Husic’s headaches are compounded by her failure to follow physicians’ instructions to discontinue Advil, and her failure to consistently wear sunglasses. Thus, counsel argued that Husic’s damages totaled approximately $60,000, which, after apportionment of liability, would amounted to $6,000 against the Laser Eye Care of California.