On Feb. 5, 2012, plaintiff Amanda Chobo, 22, a restaurant manager, was to undergo a cyst removal operation at Riverside County Regional Medical Center, in Moreno Valley. Prior to the surgery, Chobo complained of abdominal pain and was told that she had an ovarian cyst. While performing the surgery, Dr. Carol Peters, the chief surgeon, noticed what she thought was endometriosis — which is when the tissue that makes up the uterine lining is present on other organs inside the body — and elected to burn it off. During the extensive burning, Peter burned along the left uterosacral ligament and down below the superficial peritoneum. Eventually, a major bleed occurred. Peters subsequently placed five large Legaclips on the uterosacral ligament to control the bleeding. Chobo was later sent home after the surgery. Chobo later returned to the hospital in pain, but was sent home again after being told that the issue had to do with complications from her pain medications. However, Chobo was unable to urinate and eventually presented to another emergency room on Feb. 19, 2012. This time, she was diagnosed with a blocked ureter due to the placement of one or more clips, and she was told to return to Riverside County Regional Medical Center. Chobo ultimately underwent a ureteroneocystostomy at Loma Linda University Medical Center the next day. Chobo sued Peters; and a resident who was present for the original surgery, Dr. Michele Brunnabend; and Riverside County Regional Medical Center. Chobo alleged that the defendants failed to properly treat the endometriosis, failed to consult with a urologist, and failed to properly place the clips. She also alleged that the defendants’ failures constituted medical malpractice. Brunnabend was ultimately dismissed from the case prior to trial. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that Peters failed to perform a work-up or history of Chobo once Peters encountered the endometriosis and that burning endometriosis is a last step after following all other options of treatment. Counsel also contended that Peters failed to obtain Chobo’s informed consent, as Chobo had previously agreed to have the cyst removed, but did not agree to anything else. Plaintiff’s counsel argued that ureters are a critical area and that utmost care must be taken in the area in order to prevent any problems, but that Peters failed to do so. Counsel contended that, instead, one or more of the clips closed off one of Chobo’s ureters and that Peters failed to check the ureter to see if it was open. In addition, plaintiff’s counsel argued that Peters failed to consult with a urologist before or after the surgery to make sure there was not any urethral injury. The plaintiff’s ob-gyn expert and the defense’s urogynecology expert agreed that Chobo’s endometriosis was not life threatening. Defense counsel argued that when a laparoscopic operation is agreed to, the patient also consents to exploratory abdominal surgery. In addition, Peters claimed that burning off the endometriosis had to be performed, as the endometriosis was causing Chobo pain, and that 30 to 60 percent of the time when she finds endometriosis during a surgery, she would burn it., Chobo was in pain and unable to urinate after the initial surgery. She eventually presented to another emergency room on Feb. 19, 2012, and was told that she had a blocked ureter and to return to Riverside County Regional Medical Center. The next day, two physicians from Loma Linda University Medical Center performed a ureteroneocystostomy on Chobo, where they had to remove part of the blocked ureter and then reattach it. Chobo claimed that she also suffered complications after the second surgery. She alleged that as a result, she now suffers from urination urgency and frequency, as well as some bladder incontinence. She also claimed that she left with internal scarring and that there is a possibility that she will not be able to get pregnant in the future.