On Dec. 10, 2009, plaintiff Michelle Gorham, 41, a licensed esthetician, was holding, like a pencil, a glass high frequency electrode of a multi-function spa treatment device called a Combo Quintet Unit. The high frequency function of the device involves the use of a high frequency handle and a high frequency glass electrode that is to be inserted into the handle. However, as Gorham inserted the electrode into its handle, the electrode unexpectedly shattered. As a result, the broken glass severely cut her at the base of her right, dominant index finger, ultimately severing her radial digital nerve. Gorham sued Silhouet-Tone (USA) Ltd. and Silhouet-Tone Appareils De Beaute Inc., the manufacturers of the Combo Quintet Unit, as well as Select Spa Source, LLC, which was a distributor of the unit, but not the distributor of the specific unit in question. Gorham alleged claims of design defect, warning defect, and negligence against the defendants. Silhouet-Tone (USA) Ltd. was initially named in the complaint, but when it was determined that Silhouet-Tone Appareils De Beaute Inc. was the proper defendant, Silhouet-Tone (USA) Ltd. was dismissed from the case and Silhouet-Tone Appareils De Beaute Inc. was added to it. In addition, Select Spa Source was initially a defendant based on Gorham’s belief that it had sold the subject device. However, Select Spa Source was later dismissed when the court granted its motion for summary judgment. Thus, the matter continued against Silhouet-Tone Appareils De Beaute Inc. only. Plaintiff’s counsel noted that Silhouet-Tone designed the device to require the user to use his or her bare hands to apply force to insert the glass high frequency electrode into the high frequency handle. Thus, counsel asserted that the device was defectively designed because it exposed users to avoidable risks of harm related to the glass electrode breaking in the user’s hand, particularly when inserting the electrode into its handle with the required insertion force. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that there are safer alternative designs that would require no force to insert the glass high frequency electrode into its handle, which would avoid the shattering of the electrode during insertion. Plaintiff’s counsel also asserted that Silhouet Tone’s instructions and warnings regarding how to insert the high frequency electrode and the dangers associated with handling the device were inadequate. Counsel contended that Silhouet-Tone’s instructions provided that the user should never push in the electrode with the palm and that the user should hold the electrode by the thumb and index finger during insertion. However, counsel contended that the manufacturer failed to warn of the risk and associated dangers of the high frequency electrode cracking, shattering or degrading upon repeated or regular use; the circumstances under which the high frequency electrode should be replaced; the need to inspect the high frequency electrodes for damage; the proper storage and handling of the electrode when not in use; and the use of a glove when inserting the electrode into the high frequency handle to protect against injury in case of glass shattering. Counsel for Silhouet-Tone contended that Gorham must have misused the product, that Gorham was not following the directions in the product’s instruction manual when she was injured and that the product was not defective. Counsel added that there had never been an injury reported to Silhouet-Tone regarding the subject product in over 50 years of worldwide use. Additionally, counsel contended that no one was ever reported to be injured from a broken electrode, as Silhouet-Tone purchases the electrode from a company in France and the French company had also never had a claim of the electrode breaking. Silhouet-Tone’s counsel proffered that a Chinese company sells an alleged replacement electrode for the unit, but that the Chinese version does not fit properly into position and that as Gorham’s employer cleaned up the glass after the incident, there is no way to know if the electrode in question was from the Chinese company or not., Gorham sustained a laceration at the base of her right, dominant index finger, ultimately severing her radial digital nerve. As a result, she was taken to a hospital after the incident. Gorham’s medical treatment primarily involved eight stellate ganglion blocks, and surgery to repair the severed nerve and to remove a neuroma on Dec. 30, 2009. In April 2010, Gorham was diagnosed with complex regional pain syndrome, also known as reflex sympathetic dystrophy or causalgia, a chronic pain condition, which affects the area of her right, dominant hand along the base of her middle finger, through the base of her thumb, and continuing towards her wrist. She also developed a right index finger contracture (also known as a “trigger finger”) in which her finger remains in a permanent flexed position. As a result, she was prescribed pain medication for daily use/multiple times a day. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that Gorham has reached stage three of CRPS, where the condition has become permanent and is impossible to cure. Gorham claimed that the pain, coupled with the finger contracture of her dominant hand, have substantially reduced her ability to use her right, upper extremity for both one-handed and two-handed activities. She also claimed that she is now required to rely on assistance from others for certain activities, and required to modify several household activities and activities of daily living. Gorham alleged that as a result, she’s developed left upper extremity overuse syndrome. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that Gorham’s future medical care is expected to include ongoing stellate ganglion blocks or a spinal cord stimulator, pain medication, and physical therapy. Counsel also contended that Gorham would not be employable in the future due to her pain and . Thus, Gorham sought recovery of $121,000 for past medical expenses, between $1,510,362 and $1,959,555 for future medical expenses, $115,000 for past loss of household services, and $1,062,466 for future loss of household services. She also sought recovery of up to $1,633,926 for past and future lost earnings, as well as an unspecified amount of damages for her past and future pain and suffering. Silhouet-Tone’s counsel disputed Gorham’s alleged future medical expenses, lost earnings and loss of household services.