On Sept. 11, 2012, plaintiff Gabriel Affonso, 44, a vacuum salesman at M.R. Enterprise, was attacked at work by a coworker, Thomas Avent. Approximately nine days before the attack, Avent was arrested on a business trip for allegedly threatening Affonso and another employee. After being released from jail, Avent admittedly wanted to “get back at” Affonso for having him arrested. Upon hearing about the arrest, the owner of M.R. Enterprise, Miguel Rocha, imposed a brief suspension on Avent. However, when he returned to work, Avent attacked Rocha upon seeing him for the first time since the arrest. Affonso sustained multiple facial fractures from the workplace altercation. Affonso sued Miguel Rocha, who was doing business as M.R. Enterprise. Affonso claimed that after Avent was released from jail, he heard that Avent wanted to “get back at” him. He alleged that as a result, he reported his concerns about Avent to Rocha, but that Rocha still allowed Avent to return to work after imposing only a short ‘cooling off’ period. Thus, plaintiff’s counsel argued that Rocha knew, or should have known, that Avent posed a threat of violence toward Affonso in September 2012 and that Rocha failed to take any steps to protect Affonso from Avent. Counsel further argued that Rocha was liable for the negligent supervision and retention of Avent and that Rocha’s inaction caused the assault at work. In addition, plaintiff’s counsel maintained a claim based on a premises liability theory of negligence, as Rocha knew or should have known about Avent’s unfitness, but that Rocha still allowed Avent to enter the work premises, which constituted a negligent use of property that created a dangerous condition that was a substantial factor in causing Affonso’s harm. Rocha claimed that the workplace attack was not foreseeable, as Affonso and Avent had previously trained him in the vacuum sales industry, and had worked together in the same industry for nearly a decade without incident. He also claimed that neither Affonso nor Avent ever disclosed the complete facts that led to Avent’s arrest. Thus, he maintained that he knew Avent had been arrested, but not that Avent had been arrested for allegedly threatening a co-worker. Rocha also denied being told by Affonso or anybody else that they felt threatened by Avent, and he alleged that Affonso returned to work voluntarily without ever indicating that he feared for his safety. In addition, Rocha claimed that he believed that he had diffused the situation by meeting separately with Affonso and Avent, and by imposing a brief suspension on Avent. Thus, defense counsel argued that neither Rocha nor anyone else at the business, including Affonso, had advance warning that the attack would occur. Counsel also argued that the Avent and Affonso were either fully or partially responsible for any harm arising out of the incident at work., Affonso suffered several physical during the attack, including multiple fractures to the right facial bones and right orbital region. He was subsequently transported by ambulance to a Kaiser emergency room, where he was diagnosed with a mild traumatic brain injury. Affonso then underwent surgery in the emergency department to repair his facial and nasal fractures. He then had sporadic medical care in 2013 and 2014, which Affonso claimed was due to his lack of insurance. However, in 2015, he began receiving consistent medical treatment through the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. Affonso claimed that he eventually began to have complications, including chronic facial nerve pain, related to the he sustained in the attack. He alleged that as a result, he required a second surgery at a V.A. hospital in late 2015. Three of the plaintiff’s V.A. treaters testified at trial via a videotaped deposition. In addition, Affonso claimed that he suffered emotional issues resulted to the attack and was ultimately diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder by both a private psychologist and a V.A. psychologist. Affonso and his family members testified that Affonso suffered from flashbacks and an intense fear, anxiety, and depression as a result of the attack. Affonso alleged that as a result, he underwent consistent psychological treatment. He also alleged that his and PTSD completely prevented him from holding gainful employment. Thus, Affonso sought recovery of $15,150.47 in past medical costs, $245,551 in past lost earnings, and $722,871 in future lost earnings. He also sought recovery of damages for his past and future pain and suffering. Defense counsel argued that Affonso was largely fabricating and/or exaggerating his . Counsel subsequently presented a sub rosa surveillance video in an effort to establish that Affonso was fabricating and/or exaggerating his . Counsel also argued that there was evidence that Affonso had several prior , including head , which Affonso failed to disclose during written discovery. The defense’s neurology and psychology experts opined that Affonso was not credible and was a malingerer. Defense counsel argued that the plaintiff’s treating providers did not reach the same conclusion because Affonso purposefully provided suboptimal performance on neurocognitive testing and selectively provided incomplete information about his medical history. In addition, defense counsel disputed that Affonso’s 2015 surgery was caused by the September 2012 attack, and presented evidence that Affonso had undergone prior nasal surgeries to correct congenital defects to his septum. Defense counsel also disputed Affonso’s claim that he was unable to hold gainful employment, and presented evidence that Affonso had taken a part-time, volunteer position with the V.A., had applied for another volunteer position with the District Attorney’s office, and had worked for pay as a handyman since his injury.