On March 20, 2013, plaintiff Joanna Anderson, 34, a sales/marketing employee and owner of a small business, presented to a family physician, Dr. Joseph Bettencourt, to undergo a routine Intense Pulsed Light (IPL) treatment to her face and other areas of her body. Anderson claimed that Bettencourt did not provide her with eye protection and that, during the procedure, Bettencourt shot the IPL onto her left eyelid. Anderson claimed that as a result, the IPL passed through her eyelid and into her eye, causing to her eye. Anderson sued Bettencourt, alleging that Bettencourt failed to properly perform the IPL procedure and that this failure constituted medical malpractice and medical battery. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that Bettencourt did not take any steps to shield Anderson’s eyes or otherwise provide Anderson with protective eyewear at any time before or during the procedure. Counsel argued that as a foreseeable result, Bettencourt shot the IPL through Anderson’s left eyelid and into her left eye. Thus, plaintiff’s counsel argued that Bettencourt violated the standard of care in governing the use of IPL devices and that Bettencourt ignored instructions and warnings provided to him by the IPL device manufacturer. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that the manufacturer’s manuals contain numerous warnings indicating that the IPL light can seriously damage the eye and that the manuals also contain instructions not to use the IPL device around a patient’s eyes without providing the patient with protective eyewear, such as opaque goggles or metal shields. Counsel also contended that peer-reviewed medical literature, which was available to Bettencourt before he injured Anderson, detailed to the eye and related structures that can occur as a result of shooting an IPL into a patient’s eye(s). Counsel further contended that although eye from IPL treatments were (and, to a large extent, still are) relatively new, the that Bettencourt inflicted on Anderson were the same that the IPL manufacturer warns against and are the same that are detailed in the medical literature. Plaintiff’s counsel argued that Bettencourt attempted to hide his fault by refusing to provide Anderson with her medical records until Anderson was forced to secure the services of an attorney. Counsel contended that after Anderson requested her medical records, Bettencourt initially provided her with blank, generic intake forms that Bettencourt uses in his medical practice and that it was not until Anderson was forced to seek the help of an attorney that Bettencourt turned over Anderson’s medical records. After significant discovery, but before trial, Bettencourt admitted that he a duty of care to Anderson and that he breached the standard of care. However, he denied causing Bettencourt’s alleged ., Anderson claimed that she suffers from iritis, left eye pain, synechiae, transillumination defects, photophobia, left-side headaches, reduced left-eye field of vision, and bouts of raised intraocular pressure. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that Bettencourt’s negligence caused Anderson’s iris to be fused with her cornea. In the days following the IPL treatment, Anderson’s condition grew worse. Anderson claimed she experienced severe pain and light sensitivity, which triggered debilitating headaches. She claimed the pain was so severe that she was forced to remain in her room much of the day with shades and blinds drawn, leaving her in the dark, as she was unable to withstand virtually any light exposure to her eye. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that because the anatomy and function of human eyes is such that the left eye and right eye work together (bilaterally) and experience the same effects, Anderson’s left eye affected her right eye. Counsel argued that as a result, Anderson could not escape her photophobia, or light sensitivity, even if she wore a patch on her left eye. Anderson promptly sought medical treatment from eye specialists, starting with Dr. Christopher Hulburd, her treating ophthalmology expert at Pacific Eye, in Paso Robles. Anderson treated with Hulburd on at least five separate occasions, but he was unable to provide a fix for the alleged ongoing pain and photophobia. Shortly thereafter, Anderson sought additional treatment from a wide array of health care professionals in a range of specialties, including pain, neurology, and ophthalmology. Her consultations included physicians associated with the Jules Stein Eye Institute and UCLA pain management specialists. She received a number of consultations, examinations and prescriptions. Anderson was prescribed dilating drops and steroid drops (prednisolone). Anderson claimed that her initial iritis cleared up about two months after the initial injury and that her visual acuity was normal, but that she continued to suffer from left eye pain, synechiae, transillumination defects, photophobia, glare issues, dark-light adaptation problems, left-side headaches, and occasional bouts of raised intraocular pressure. She alleged that the consensus of her eye specialists was that her are permanent. Anderson claimed that her life has been largely reduced to spending the majority of her time in artificially darkened parts of her home with blinds and curtains drawn to avoid the entry of natural light. Before allegedly being injured by Bettencourt, Anderson was industrious and worked a number of jobs at any one time, including part-time promotional modeling/marketing and sales, part-time to full-time in a contracting business, and part-time to full-time in a small cotton-candy manufacturing and delivery business that she started and developed. The cotton-candy business supplied retail food chains and even had a national marketing campaign. Anderson also took care of various home-based responsibilities, such as cleaning the home, cleaning the pool, and mowing the lawn/gardening. However, she claimed that after being injured, she has been effectively unable to work or take part in her normal day-to-day activities. She alleged that as a result, she has to employ help with housekeeping, cleaning the pool, mowing the law/gardening, driving, and basic errands. Anderson claimed that the loss of the ability to do things that were part of her everyday life has taken its toll on her psychologically and has placed pressure on her marital relationship. She further claimed she continues to experience emotional pain and suffering as a result of her and the extreme limitations it has placed on her ability to live her life as she did before Bettencourt injured her. Anderson alleged that as a result, she has participated in, and continues to participate in, therapeutic psychology treatment with a licensed therapist for the emotional trauma her limitations have caused her. In addition, Anderson claimed that she is now extremely limited in the quality time she can spend with her husband, plaintiff Chris Anderson. By extension, Mr. Anderson claimed that he has suffered a diminished experience of marital consortium because of his wife’s , and sought recovery of damages for his loss of consortium. Thus, the Andersons sought recovery of $6 million in total damages. Plaintiff’s counsel noted that the denial of the plaintiffs’ motion by the temporarily assigned judge resulted in the court barring plaintiffs’ counsel from bringing key witnesses and evidence to trial. Counsel contended that such barred witnesses included Dr. Thomas Albini (of the Bascom Palmer Eye Institute at the University of Miami), the pre-eminent authority on IPL to the eye and an author of the leading medical literature on such ; Tricia West, a life-care planner; and David Fractor, an economist. The court also barred plaintiffs’ counsel from presenting evidence of treatment that Ms. Anderson allegedly received after Sept. 30, 2015, but allowed defense counsel to present evidence from after that date. Thus, plaintiffs’ counsel was barred from presenting allegedly key evidence about Ms. Anderson’s alleged (past and future), Ms. Anderson’s alleged ongoing and future care needs, and Ms. Anderson’s alleged economic damages. Defense counsel denied causation and damages. According to plaintiffs’ counsel, despite denying causation throughout the litigation and even through opening statements, Bettencourt admitted causation on Nov. 16, 2016, which was the sixth day of trial, but only the second day of testimony. During his C.C.P. § 776 examination of Bettencourt, the plaintiffs’ lead trial attorney got Bettencourt to admit that, to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, Anderson suffered an injury as a result of his negligence. The plaintiff’s lead trial attorney then went on to reiterate that point several times, in different ways, during Bettencourt’s testimony. However, although Bettencourt conceded that Ms. Anderson suffered from some iritis, which resolved in a couple of months, he otherwise disputed the alleged . Defense counsel introduced evidence at trial that Ms. Anderson elected to undergo a rhinoplasty and cheek implant procedure approximately eight months after the IPL incident. Thus, counsel argued that this elected reconstructive surgery caused Ms. Anderson’s alleged . Defense counsel also argued that Ms. Anderson had a history of migraines and that her headaches were merely an extension of that history. Defense counsel introduced testimony and photographs showing that Ms. Anderson was at an off-road race in Fallon, Nev., in over 100-degree heat, wearing only sunglasses and no hat, and passing out water to participants in the race. Counsel also introduced several pictures and still images from a video of Ms. Anderson that were posted on Facebook. Defense counsel argued that the pictures showed that Ms. Anderson was not injured at all.