On Feb. 23, 2016, plaintiff James Peterson, 45, a port-patrol police officer, landed awkwardly while attempting to board a patrol boat at a police dock in Long Beach Harbor. Peterson claimed to his neck. Peterson sued the owner and operator of the vessel and police dock, the city of Long Beach. He alleged that the city was negligent under the Jones Act and under the common law unseaworthiness doctrine. Peterson claimed there was no boarding platform or gangway, causing him to land awkwardly as he boarded the patrol boat. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that the vessel/dock lacked a safe access system, gangway or ramp and that as a result, patrol officers were required to jump a minimum distance of three feet from the floating police dock to the floating patrol vessels. Before trial, the city claimed there were safe ways to board the vessels, rather than jumping, and that Peterson was negligent in the method he used. However, the city admitted liability before jury selection, and the matter was tried on the nature and extent of Peterson’s alleged damages., Peterson claimed he sustained a herniated disc at the C4-5 level, which compressed the cervical spinal cord. He underwent an emergency anterior discectomy and fusion at C4-5 and C5-6. However, the fusion resulted in non-union, so a follow-up posterior fusion was performed at the same level. The second surgery was successful. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that the initial injury to the cervical spinal cord resulted in a residual impairment of the right foot’s gait, causing Peterson to swing his leg as he walks. Due to restrictions, Peterson was required to medically retire from the police department. Peterson claimed he will require orthotics and follow-up care, which was valued in his life care plan. His treating physician also opined that Peterson will likely require a future cervical fusion of the adjacent level above his existing fusion within 10 years. Peterson sought recovery of $340,204 for his future medical expenses and approximately $2.5 million for the loss of earning capacity. He also sought recovery of additional economic damages for his past wage loss, and noneconomic damages for his past and future pain and suffering. Defense counsel, and the defense’s medical expert, disputed the nature and extent of Peterson’s alleged . The defense’s expert orthopedic surgeon opined that it was possible that Peterson would need some future care, but denied it was likely that Peterson would need a future surgery. The expert also opined that, with respect to the likely cost of future medical care, Peterson would only require orthotics at a cost of $4,500. Defense counsel contended that Peterson had a successful spinal fusion that Peterson had employment opportunities available that would cause his alleged earnings loss to be substantially less then alleged.