On Sept. 7, 2011, plaintiff Nguyetnah Nguyen, 60, an assembly worker for computer chips, was undergoing range of motion exercises, or ranging, when her left distal femur fractured. Nguyen previously underwent a left knee replacement in June 2010. Thereafter, she underwent rehabilitation and physical therapy at a facility, before treating with a home therapist. She then started undergoing physical therapy at Medizen Total Rehab, in Fountain Valley, and was released in December 2010. In February 2011, Nguyen returned to her orthopedist, Dr. Trieu Tran, with complaints of continued knee stiffness. Tran subsequently recommended a manipulation under anesthesia, which Nguyen underwent in June 2011. Tran then recommended that Nguyen return to physical therapy for continued treatment of her left knee. As a result, Nguyen began physical therapy with Frank Acunia, a licensed physical therapist and independent contractor at Medizen Total Rehab, in July 2011. On Sept. 7, 2011, Acunia was providing range of motion exercises, or ranging, to increase Nguyen’s flexion and extension in her left knee. While Nguyen was lying on her stomach, Acunia placed one of his hands on the back of her left knee and the other on her ankle with the aim was to pull the knee toward the buttocks to gain flexion. However, Nguyen claimed that while doing this, Acunia fractured her left distal femur. Nguyen sued Acunia; Medizen Total Rehab; and the facility’s owner, Diemuy Thai. Nguyen claimed that the defendants negligently performed the physical therapy exercises, causing her injury. Medizen Total Rehab and Thai were later dismissed from the case, and the matter proceeded to a bench trial against Acunia only. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that Acunia used excessive force when providing the ranging and that he pushed the knee past its endpoint, causing the fracture. The plaintiff’s physical therapy and orthopedic surgery experts both agreed that Nguyen’s fracture was the result of excessive force and that the subject fracture can only occur from excessive force. They also opined that Nguyen did not have severe osteoporosis, as indicated by the defense’s medical experts. Defense counsel contended that Nguyen had osteoporosis in the area of the fracture due to stress shielding that occurred as a result of the placement of the prior left knee implant. Counsel also contended that Nguyen’s age, gender, non-compliance with physical therapy, and her immobility contributed to further weakening of the femur. Defense counsel argued that as a result, Nguyen’s weak bone essentially gave out during the physical therapy treatment. Thus, counsel argued that Acunia was not negligent for the spontaneous fracture, as he was doing his duties within the standard of care., Nguyen sustained a fracture of the left distal femur on Sept. 7, 2011. One week later, on Sept. 14, 2011, Nguyen underwent surgical repair, which consisted of open reduction surgery. She then underwent physical therapy. Nguyen claimed that her left knee is now stiffer than it was before and that she has weakness in the left leg, including periodic pain. Thus, she sought recovery of economic damages, and damages for her past and future pain and suffering. Defense counsel contended that Nguyen failed to mitigate her injury, and made it worse, by not seeking immediate care after the incident. Counsel contended that, instead, Nguyen waited one week to have the surgery, which made the surgery more complex, resulting in an open reduction procedure, instead of a closed reduction.