On March 5, 2010, the plaintiff, a 45-year-old Spanish-language interpreter, was admitted to Ronald Reagan UCLA Medical Center with complaints of foot pain, numbness and discoloration. He was seen by a vascular surgeon and diagnosed with a large arterial thrombus that was occluding blood flow to his left leg. The vascular surgeon subsequently scheduled the plaintiff to undergo “clot busting” surgery in five days, but by the time the surgery was performed, the plaintiff had suffered significant tissue necrosis and ultimately had to undergo a below-the-knee leg amputation. The plaintiff sued the medical center’s operator, Regents of the University of California, as well as the treating vascular surgeon and the three physician’s involved in his pre-hospital care. He alleged that the defendants were negligence in misdiagnosing his condition and in delaying his treatment, and that this negligence constituted medical malpractice. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that when there is sensory loss, the standard of care requires that either bypass or clot busting surgery be performed within 48 to 72 hours after admission. Counsel also contended the medical record clearly showed that when the plaintiff presented to the hospital, an E.R. physician noted numbness of the foot, which is a sensory loss, despite the vascular surgeon testifying at deposition that there was no sensory loss. Plaintiff’s counsel further contended that had the surgery been timely performed, the plaintiff’s limb would have been saved. The vascular surgeon testified at deposition that there was no urgency to perform the surgery because the patient had no sensory loss in his foot. Thus, defense counsel disputed the E.R. physician’s finding and contended that the delay in surgery was justified because the vascular surgeon noted no loss of foot sensation., The plaintiff suffered significant tissue necrosis and ultimately had to undergo a below-the-knee amputation of his left leg. He now wears a prosthetic leg that limits his ability to ambulate. He claimed he will now be less competitive in the marketplace, will work fewer hours, and will exit the workforce earlier than a person without his disability. Thus, the plaintiff sought recovery of $370,000 in damages for his loss of future earning capacity. He also sought recovery of damages in excess of $1 million for his future life care plan, treatment and therapies, based on a life expectancy of 33 years. In addition, the plaintiff sought recovery of damages for his past and future pain and suffering. Defense counsel disputed the amount of life expectancy alleged by the plaintiff, contending the condition that caused the aortic occlusion was a hypercoagulable state that, statistically, meant the plaintiff’s life expectancy was only 7 more years. Thus, defense counsel contended that the shortened life expectancy significantly diminished both the plaintiff’s life-care costs and earnings loss.