On March 15, 2015, plaintiff Arleen Vallejo, a 59-year-old unemployed, disabled woman, was walking home from her usual bus stop and was a few blocks from her home when she tripped and fell on an elevated gap in the sidewalk at the corner of North Avenue 56 and Ash Street, in Los Angeles. Vallejo claimed to her left knee and lower back. Vallejo sued the owner of the sidewalk, the city of Los Angeles. She alleged that the deviation in the sidewalk constituted a dangerous condition and that city failed to timely repair it. Vallejo claimed the gap was just high enough to pose a tripping hazard, but not so high that it would be readily apparent. She admitted that she could have been more attentive, but that she was looking up the street to ensure that she would not run into pedestrians. Vallejo further claimed the incident would have never occurred if the city had not left a potential tripping hazard go unfixed. The plaintiff’s notice expert, a former Los Angeles City supervisor, testified that there were three separate incidents where city employees were in the general vicinity, but admitted that there were no specific calls or complaints regarding the subject uplift. The expert opined that the city employees should have done a more proactive inspection during the three times they were in the area and that their failure to do so constituted sufficient notice that the city should have been aware of the dangerous condition. The plaintiff’s accident reconstruction expert testified about the alleged dangerous condition, opining that since the deviation was over 1.5 inches, it posed a potential tripping hazard. The expert also opined that Vallejo was acting reasonably in her use of the sidewalk. According to plaintiff’s counsel, the defense’s accident reconstruction and notice expert conceded during cross-examination that had he seen the deviation, it would have been scheduled to be fixed. In closing, plaintiff’s counsel asked the jury to allocate 75 percent fault to the city and 25 percent to Vallejo. Defense counsel argued that the city had no notice of the uplift because there were no complaints about it or even on that side of the street on that block. Counsel also contended that the city had no budget to do proactive inspections, that the city’s procedures were adequate and that there was not enough time to fix the deviation due to the number of complaints it gets on a regular basis. Defense counsel contended that the deviation was so small that it could not be seen from far away by any city employees in the area and suggested that since Vallejo knew about the uplift, she should have informed the city about it. Counsel further argued that since she knew of the deviation, Vallejo was not being reasonable in her use of the sidewalk and that, therefore, the city should not be held liable., Vallejo sustained contusions and strains to her left knee, and strains and sprains to her lower back. She claimed that after the fall, she was able to walk the rest of the way home, but her symptoms grew worse, so she presented to a hospital later that day. Vallejo saw an orthopedist, who recommended a physical therapy regimen. Vallejo then presented to physical therapy for treatment a handful of times, but primarily managed her symptoms with pain medication. Her orthopedist also suggested a potential knee replacement, but Vallejo refused. Vallejo claimed that she was non-compliant with the doctor’s physical therapy recommendations due to a difficult recovery from a prior bilateral hip surgery, which she underwent to treat a workers’ compensation injury approximately 10 years earlier. She also claimed that she was not interested in a potential knee replacement because she experienced poor results from the prior hip replacements. Due to Vallejo’s reluctance to treat, the agreed upon past medical bills under Howell were less than $5,000. Shortly before trial, Vallejo claimed that her knee pain grew worse. She presented to her pain management expert to determine any potential necessary future care. The plaintiff’s pain management expert opined that Vallejo would need injections and a knee replacement surgery costing $56,000, and epidural injections for her lumbar spine costing about $10,000 each. However, the expert conceded that he did not know how Vallejo would respond to the injections, so he could not determine how many she would need. The expert also admitted that Vallejo would likely have needed treatment anyway in approximately five years based on her medical history, age and weight. Vallejo claimed that her had a substantial effect on her activities of daily living. Vallejo and her friend testified about how Vallejo has difficulty walking or standing for long periods of time, difficulty climbing stairs, and difficulty doing prison ministry work with her church group. They also testified about how Vallejo has to make frequent stops to rest when walking. Plaintiff’s counsel asked the jury to award Vallejo no less than $286,000 in total damages. Defense counsel argued that since Vallejo testified in her deposition that she would not undergo any future surgery due to the difficult recovery she had for her bilateral hip replacements, the jury should not consider a knee replacement or epidural injections because it was speculative. Counsel also argued that since Vallejo had not received her MRIs yet, the jury should not award future care since there was no way to tell if the care was reasonable or necessary. Counsel further argued that the inconsistencies in the medical records and gaps in treatment cast doubt on the severity of the . In addition, defense counsel argued that the recommended treatment was excessive and noted that it was not disputed that Vallejo would need the same care eventually due to her age, weight and size. In response, plaintiff’s counsel argued that even though Vallejo had not been compliant with treatment up until the point of trial, Vallejo’s pain had grown to the point where she had to address it and that Vallejo should get future medical care because of the city’s conduct. Counsel also argued that inconsistencies in the medical records regarding the wrong knee being sometimes noted happens, particularly in the urgent care or emergency room, when the primary concern is making sure a patient is okay and that the gaps in treatment were due to Vallejo’s prior experiences with therapy not helping her.