On June 17, 2011, plaintiff John Handal, 46, a BMW mechanic, passed out on the floor of the doctor’s office while discussing the potential of pacemaker surgery. Handal previously had four episodes of syncope — a temporary loss of consciousness due to a fall in blood pressure — with each episode occurring approximately five years apart. As a result, Handal was referred to Dr. Henry Yee, an associate in cardiologist. On June 17, 2011, Yee performed an EKG and determined that Handal had a low heart rate. However, after the potential for a pacemaker surgery was brought up, Handal passed out in the doctor’s office. An internist associate subsequently felt for a pulse, and determined it was weak. Once Handal was found to have no pulse, the internist associate began performing CPR and revived Handal after a few seconds. Handal was then urgently recommended for a pacemaker. As a result, paramedics brought Handal to Garfield Medical Center, in Monterey Park, where Yee implanted a pacemaker within six hours of initially meeting Handal. The procedure went without incident. Within one week of the surgery, Handal began complaining of a fever and pain at the incision site. As a result, Yee prescribed antibiotics. However, about three weeks later, Handal complained of redness and potential pus at the pacemaker site. Yee subsequently hospitalized Handal for observation and gave him intravenous antibiotics. Thereafter, the infection cleared up. About three months later, Handal saw a different cardiologist, located in the same community, and was diagnosed with an abscess in the pacemaker pocket. As a result, the device was removed. Handal sued Yee; the manufacturer of the pacemaker, Biotronik Inc.; and the operator of Garfield Medical Center, AHMC Health Care Inc. (which was initially erroneously sued as AHMC Garfield Medical Center). Handal alleged that Yee negligently performed the pacemaker surgery, negligently treated him, and failed to obtain his proper informed consent. He also alleged that Yee’s actions constituted medical malpractice. Handal further alleged that AHMC Health Care was liable for Yee’s actions and that Biotronik defectively designed the pacemaker. AHMC Health Care entered into a confidential settlement with Handal during a mediation, and Biotronik was ultimately let out of the case. Thus, the matter continued to trial against Yee only. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that Handal never needed a pacemaker, that Yee overreacted to Handal’s benign episode of fainting in the office, and that surgery was not performed in a sterile environment. Counsel also contended that Handal did not meet the pacemaker implantation criteria and that, in fact, Handal’s pacemaker was removed four months later. Counsel further contended that Handal has done fine without a pacemaker during the 4.5 years after it was removed, which was further evidence that he never needed the pacemaker in the first place. Handal claimed that Yee coerced him into receiving the pacemaker within six hours of meeting him for the first time and that Yee did not offer a second opinion. He alleged that, instead, Yee told him that he would die if he did not get a pacemaker and then threatened to call the Department of Motor Vehicles to report him as an unsafe driver who may lapse into unconsciousness. Thus, plaintiff’s counsel argued that Handal’s informed consent was coerced. Plaintiff’s counsel further argued that Yee inoculated Handal with E. Coli bacteria at the time of the pacemaker placement. Counsel contended that the operating room was not sterile and that this caused the developing infection, which was then masked by several different antibiotics. Counsel asserted that since the different antibiotics masked the infection, it caused a delay of several months before the infection became an abscess and could be appropriately diagnosed. Yee claimed that Handal met the criteria for pacemaker implantation given Handal’s slow heart rate, loss of consciousness, and cardiac arrest in the office. He also denied ever coercing Handal into the pacemaker implantation, although he admitted that he did recommend the implantation urgently given the difficult circumstances. Yee further claimed that all of his treatment of the developing infection was reasonable, proactive, and appropriate. Yee’s counsel contended that the infection that did eventually develop into an abscess was unrelated to the care that Yee provided. Counsel argued that there was absolutely no evidence that there was an inoculation of bacteria during the time of the pacemaker placement given the sterile operating room conditions that were observed, per the usual custom., Handal claimed that he suffered an unnecessary implantation and explantation of the pacemaker. He also suffered an abscess infection, which necessitated the explantation of the pacemaker. Thus, Handal sought recovery of $3,500 in past medical costs, $50,000 in past loss of earnings, and $250,000 in general damages for his pain and suffering.