On May 16, 2016, plaintiff Randy Hatfield, 67, a supervisor, underwent surgical replacement of his left knee. The procedure was performed by an orthopedist, Dr. Michael Tivnon, at Bakersfield Memorial Hospital, in Bakersfield. The surgery was prompted by an osteoarthritic condition. During the surgery’s aftermath, Hatfield reported significant impairment of his left knee’s flexion, or forward range of motion. He claimed that the knee could not be extended beyond 90 degrees, whereas 140 degrees is the generally accepted maximum. Tivnon recommended physical therapy, and, later, manipulation under anesthesia. Hatfield underwent the procedures but did not obtain satisfactory results. Months later, Hatfield sought the opinion of another orthopedist, Dr. Fadi Saied. During an initial examination of Hatfield, Saied noted 84 degrees of flexion of the left knee. Saied performed surgical revision of the knee, and Hatfield claimed that the knee’s flexion improved to a range of more than 110 degrees. Saied claimed that the surgery revealed that the knee’s tibial component had been rotated some 20 degrees from its proper position, that the knee’s femoral component was slightly oversized, and that the knee’s flexion-extension gap was not symmetrical. Hatfield sued Tivnon. The lawsuit alleged that Tivnon failed to properly perform the initial knee-replacement surgery, that Tivnon failed to properly evaluate Hatfield’s postsurgical progress, and that Tivnon’s failures constituted malpractice. Plaintiff’s counsel claimed that Tivnon failed to test Hatfield’s left knee for range of motion immediately after inserting the knee hardware. Such a test was not reflected in Tivnon’s operative notes. Hatfield’s expert orthopedist opined that Tivnon deviated from the standard of care by placing the tibial component internally rotated at 20 degrees. The expert also opined that, when the manipulation under anesthesia failed, Tivnon should have suspected hardware-component misplacement. Tivnon claimed that he had performed thousands of knee-replacement procedures and relied upon his customs and practices when performing Hatfield’s surgery. The defense’s expert orthopedist conceded that a failure to immediately test the revised knee’s flexion would have constituted a deviation from the accepted standard of care, but the expert opined that Tivnon met the applicable standard of care in all aspects of his care and treatment of Hatfield., Hatfield claimed that his initial knee-replacement surgery was improperly performed, resulting in a maximum flexion of about 90 degrees. He claimed that he experienced significant restriction of his ability to perform physical tasks. He underwent physical therapy and manipulation under anesthesia, but he claimed that his limitations persisted. On June 19, 2017, Hatfield underwent another replacement of his left knee. The procedure was followed by a course of physical therapy. Hatfield retired on Oct. 3, 2016. He claimed that he had intended to work until the age of 70 and perhaps longer, but that his left knee’s limitations prevented his performance of his job’s duties. He claimed that he suffers ongoing limitations. Hatfield sought recovery of damages for past and future loss of earnings and benefits, and he also sought recovery of damages for past and future pain and suffering. He sought a total of about $420,000. Defense counsel disputed the extent of Hatfield’s limitations. Defense counsel noted that, during the approximate time frame of Hatfield’s postsurgical physical therapy, Hatfield traveled to Arizona, Austria, Chicago and Florida. Defense counsel also noted that Hatfield acknowledged that his left knee was excellent, didn’t require further treatment, and allowed him to participate in all activities of daily living without assistance or difficulty.