At 8:25 a.m. on Feb. 17, 2013, plaintiff Shannon Kolstad, 33, a manager at Sephora, was opening the store on Hollywood Boulevard. As she was walking out of the manager’s office, she slipped and fell, landing hard on her right side. Kolstad claimed to her right hip and lower back. Kolstad sued the operator of the store, H&H Retail Owner LLC, and a cleaning company hired to clean the store, Thoreau Janitorial Services Inc. Kolstad waived a jury trial, and the matter proceeded to a bench trial. H&H was ultimately dismissed from the case. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that Thoreau’s employees had recently mopped the back of the store and that Kolstad slipped on a watery substance. Kolstad claimed that she knew the Thoreau employees were cleaning the store, but that she thought they were cleaning the front of the store and not the back, where the manager’s office was located. Thus, she claimed that Thoreau’s employees were negligent because they failed to put up yellow caution signs where they had mopped. Thoreau’s counsel argued that Kolstad should have known the Thoreau’s employees were mopping the back of the store, as they did so every morning at 8 a.m. Counsel also contended that Kolstad should have known about the mopping because she let the cleaners in and heard them filling water buckets, and because there was a distinct smell of pine cleaning material, which was being used. Thus, counsel argued that Kolstad should have known the floor was wet., Kolstad sustained a contusion to her right hip. She also claimed she suffered a herniated lumbar disc as a result of the fall. After completing an incident report at work, Kolstad drove herself home. Later that day, she was taken by her mother to a hospital and was diagnosed with a contusion on her right hip. She was subsequently treated and released. However, in the months that followed, Kolstad complained of continued pain in the right hip and lower back. She was eventually diagnosed with a herniated disc in her lower back. She tried treating with conservative measures, but she claimed her pain continued to get worse and started to run down into her buttock and leg. As a result, Kolstad underwent EMG studies, physical therapy, and epidural injections. She eventually underwent a lumbar discectomy more than three years after the fall. However, she claimed the surgery did not help her pain, and she was diagnosed with complex regional pain syndrome, also known as reflex sympathetic dystrophy or causalgia, a chronic pain condition, three years after the incident. Eventually, Kolstad had a pain pump implanted in her lumbar spine 4.5 years after the fall. Kolstad claimed that despite undergoing surgery and conservative treatment, she continues to suffer from chronic pain, causing her to walk with a limp. As a result, she has not worked since her fall at Sephora. Kolstad claimed that she now does arts and crafts from home and sells them on Etsy for little to no profit. The plaintiff’s medical experts opined that all of Kolstad’s treatment was reasonable and necessary and that Kolstad would probably work after two to three years. The plaintiff’s pain management expert opined that Kolstad’s CRPS was possibly spreading and that Kolstad’s future was “grim.” The defense’s pain management/CRPS expert opined that Kolstad had a mild-to-moderate case of CRPS and that Kolstad would have mild-to-moderate pain for the rest of her life. The expert also opined that Kolstad would be able to work at a very light duty job in about two years, would be able to give birth to a child in about one year, and would need help 20 hours per week when the child reached the age of one. Specifically, the defense’s pain management expert believed that Kolstad could give birth, that the CRPS was not spreading, and that Kolstad would be able to function with her activities of daily living within two years, if she treated with him. In addition, the expert opined that the litigation was responsible for any alleged flair-ups of the CRPS. Prior to trial, the parties stipulated to Kolstad’s past and future medical costs, and past and future loss of wages. Thus, the trial addressed liability, and Kolstad’s alleged past and future non-economic damages. However, the parties also stipulated to a $6 million (policy limits)/$1.5 million high/low agreement.