On March 27, 2014, plaintiff Marivel Camargo, 42, a housewife, was waiting for her daughter at LA Burger Bar, in Los Angeles, where her daughter worked. Camargo was near the sales counter, checking in with her daughter, when she turned, took about three or four steps, and slipped and fell near a trash can. She allegedly landed on her back, and she claimed she injured her left knee in the fall. Camargo sued the operator of LA Burger Bar, Emesel LLC. Camargo alleged that Emesel failed to properly maintain the premises, creating a dangerous condition. She also alleged that Emesel failed to warn of the dangerous condition. Camargo claimed that she often came to the restaurant and that its employees knew her well. She testified at her deposition that she took about three to four steps from the counter when she slipped on some liquid on the floor near the trash can and landed on her back. She claimed that she wanted to get up quickly due to embarrassment and that when she turned around to see what she slipped on, she noticed that there was water on the floor and that the bottom of her pants were wet. Thus, plaintiff’s counsel contended that Emesel was negligent for having sub-standard floor tiles and for failing to have regular inspections. Counsel also contended that Emesel was negligent for failing to warn of the water on the floor and for failing to timely clean up the water. Emesel admitted liability., Camargo sustained a fracture of the left knee’s patella. She also claimed she injured her lower back, resulting in a lumbar musculoligamentous sprain and strain with spondylosis, and bulging lumbar discs. Specifically, she claimed she suffered a 2-millimeter lumbar disc bulge at the L3-4 level; a 2-millimeter lumbar disc bulge at the L4-5 level with left, foraminal, posterior, annular, high-intensity zone; and a 2- to 3-millimeter lumbosacral disc bulge at L5-S1 level. Camargo was subsequently driven by her daughter to Community Hospital of Huntington Park, in Huntington Park, where she was discharged almost immediately and told to visit an acute care unit. Camargo underwent an open reduction and internal fixation of the left patella fracture with the placement of hardware at Los Angeles County+USC Medical Center, in Los Angeles, on April 10, 2014. However, she claimed that she required an additional arthroscopic surgery to clean out the trauma-induced arthritis that formed in her left knee. Between 2015 and 2016, Camargo received attorney-referred treatment of her left knee through Dr. David Downs, an expert orthopedic surgeon at Fullerton Orthopedic Surgery Medical Group Inc., in Yorba Linda, and attorney-referred treatment of her back through Dr. Gerald Alexander, another expert orthopedic surgeon. The plaintiff’s life care planning expert then examined Camargo on Jan. 25, 2016, at which time Camargo complained of ongoing left knee pain and lower back pain. He subsequently prepared a life care plan that included a future arthroscopy for the left knee, as well as epidural injections, physical therapy, gym memberships, medications, and doctor visits for the back and knee for the next 42 years. Thus, the expert life care planner opined that Camargo’s future medical care and treatment would total $294,417.61. Camargo claimed that due to her she is unable to play with her grandchild, as she can longer carry her granddaughter, and that her ongoing left knee pain limits her ability to walk any significant distances. She also claimed that she now cooks less, as she can no longer stand for a long period of time, which also affects her ability to shower and dance at parties. In addition, she claimed that can no longer garden or go fishing with her family and that she now requires a cane to walk. Camargo claimed that as a result, her significantly impair her enjoyment of life. The parties stipulated that Camargo’s past medical costs totaled $25,243.33. Thus, Camargo sought recovery of $25,243.33 in past, stipulated medical costs and $294,417.61 in future medical costs. She also sought recovery of damages for her past and future pain and suffering. Defense counsel disputed the nature and extent of Camargo’s residual . Counsel contended that Camargo’s knee surgery healed well and that any arthritis in the left knee was due to the natural aging process, not from the fracture. However, defense counsel accepted that Camargo needed the second surgery to resolve her ongoing complaints to left knee. The defense’s expert orthopedic surgeon opined that the removal of hardware and the arthroscopy to remove the hardware would not be unreasonable and water exercises with a few weeks of physical therapy would be reasonable. However, the expert opined that no other treatment was required. Thus, he estimated that Camargo’s future medical costs would only total about $15,000. Defense counsel noted that although Camargo had two visits with Dr. Gerald Alexander and underwent an MRI, she received no treatment for her alleged back .