The plaintiff, a 54-year-old registered nurse, had a history of back pain and was referred to an anesthesiologist specializing in pain medicine. She claimed that at the first appointment, she gave the anesthesiologist a CT scan report that disclosed, “Numerous multilevel foraminal stenosis and lateral recess stenosis as well as central canal stenosis involving lumbar spine . . . . I would recommend myelography for further evaluation.” After several months of treatment, including epidural injections, the anesthesiologist recommended the implantation of a pulse generator to disrupt the pain signals. The anesthesiologist performed the surgery as a closed procedure in an outpatient surgery center owned by him. When the plaintiff awoke from the anesthesia, she began screaming in pain. She claimed she could not move her left leg and had extreme pain in her right leg. The anesthesiologist telephoned a neurosurgeon and was instructed to have the patient immediately transported by ambulance to a hospital. At the hospital, the plaintiff was taken to surgery where the neurosurgeon removed the pulse generator and the leads, and performed bilateral decompressive laminectomies at the T6, T7, T8 and T9 levels, as well as at the L1, L2, L3 and L4 levels. He also performed medial facetectomies and neruoforaminotomies. During the surgery, the neurologist found that the L2-3 facet joint on the left was broken and later wrote, “It appeared that the inferior articulating facet of the L2 level had been driven into the neuroforamen at L2 with severe compression of the L2 exiting nerve root and transversing L3 nerve root.” The plaintiff sued the anesthesiologist who implanted the pulse generator. She alleged that the anesthesiologist negligent performed the surgical implantation and failed to obtain her informed consent, and that these failures constituted medical malpractice. She also alleged that the anesthesiologist’s actions constituted battery, willful disregard for safety, and fraud. The trial court granted the demurrer to the cause of action for battery, but allowed the remaining claims to remain. Later, another trial judge denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment on the non-negligence claims. The matter ultimately proceeded to mediation at Judicate West. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that in appropriate surgical candidates, the implantation of a pulse generator can be performed at an outpatient facility in a closed manner by tunneling the leads under the skin and into the spinal column, then tunneling the wires down to the buttocks, where the pulse generator is implanted. However, counsel contended that in patients who have narrowing of the spinal column, the procedure must be performed in an “open” manner on an inpatient basis. Plaintiff’s counsel asserted that despite the fact that the CT report indicated that there was insufficient space in the spinal space for safe implantation of the leads, the anesthesiologist performed the surgery as a closed procedure in his outpatient surgery center. Thus, the plaintiff claimed that she was not a candidate for the procedure performed by the anesthesiologist. Plaintiff’s counsel noted that when the anesthesiologist’s deposition was taken, he testified that he had been unaware of the CT scan report, even though it was in his chart, and testified that if he had known of the CT report findings, he would not have performed the surgery. Defense counsel asserted that the plaintiff had successfully undergone a trial implantation prior to the surgery and that the anesthesiologist had no reason to believe that the closed implantation procedure would not be successful. The anesthesiologist had no explanation of why he did not see the CT report in his chart prior to the surgery. He also denied any fraudulent intent in performing the surgery., The plaintiff sustained a fracture of the L2-3 facet joint on the left, and awoke to find that she could not move her left leg and had extreme pain in her right leg after the pulse generator was inserted. As a result, she had to transferred to a hospital, where a neurosurgeon surgically removed the pulse generator and the leads, and performed bilateral decompressive laminectomies at the T6, T7, T8 and T9 levels, as well as at the L1, L2, L3 and L4 levels. He also performed medial facetectomies and neuroforaminotomies. A week later, the plaintiff was discharged to a rehabilitation facility, where she underwent rehabilitation for five weeks. The plaintiff claimed she suffered spinal cord damage as a result of the anesthesiologist’s actions, causing partial loss of sensation, instability and constant pain. She alleged that as a result, she is totally disabled and lives in constant pain. The life care plan projected future medical and assistive needs exceeding $1 million. The plaintiff’s pain management expert opined that had the surgery been properly performed as an open procedure, the plaintiff would have been largely cured of her pain symptoms and would have been capable of returning to work as a registered nurse. Thus, the plaintiff sought recovery of damages for her medical costs, loss of wages, and pain and suffering. Her husband brought a derivative claim, seeking recovery for his loss of consortium. Defense counsel asserted that the patient is no worse off now than she was prior to the pulse generator surgery. Counsel also asserted that the plaintiff suffered no earnings loss because she had not worked as a nurse for several years.