In October 2014, plaintiff Maria Gonzalez, a medical assistant at the Kaiser Permanente San Diego Medical Center, in San Diego, was terminated from her position. Prior to her termination, Gonzalez’s son began treating a rare kidney disorder at Kaiser Permanente facilities using his mother’s employer-sponsored health care insurance. He first sought treatment for pain in the area of his kidney in 2011, when he was 21 years old, and was initially diagnosed with kidney stones. However, as the months passed and he was seen by many doctors within the Kaiser system, Gonzalez’s son continued to report extreme pain. As a result, Gonzalez’s son became a patient of Kaiser’s Pain Management Department in 2012, and as his mother was the only medical assistant in Kaiser’s San Diego Pain Management Department, Gonzalez became her son’s medical assistant. By November 2012, a Kaiser doctor suggested that Gonzalez’s son may have a rare condition called Loin Pain Hematuria Syndrome, or LPHS, which is characterized by flank pain plus unexplained blood in the urine. One, sometimes effective, treatment for LPHS is an auto-renal transplant surgery in which the kidney on the side of the pain is removed from the patient’s body and then re-implanted on the other side of the body. However, Kaiser could not perform the surgery in-house. Thus, it approved Gonzalez’s son to have the auto-renal transplant surgery at UC San Diego Medical Center, in San Diego. In August 2013, a transplant team at UC San Diego Medical Center performed the surgery on Gonzalez’s son, and Kaiser paid the substantial costs associated with the surgery because it was out-of-system care. Initially, the surgery seemed to work. Gonzalez’s son’s pain levels were reduced, and he began to wean off his heavily prescribed narcotic usage. However, by February 2014, Gonzalez’s son reported that the pain had returned, but now on the side where his kidney was transplanted. (Approximately 25 percent of patients who undergo an auto-renal transplant surgery will have pain on the side where the kidney is transplanted.) On July 7, 2014, Gonzalez accompanied her son to an appointment with his doctor, whom is a doctor that Gonzalez works more frequently than any other Kaiser doctor, and was allegedly told that there was a conflict of interest and that Gonzalez’s son was being discharged from the pain management department and sent back to primary care. As a result, in July 2014 and August 2014, Gonzalez and her son repeatedly voiced objections to, and pushed back against, Kaiser’s refusal to provide Gonzalez’s son with care from a pain management doctor and even presented to Kaiser’s emergency room, demanding to see a pain management doctor. Gonzalez’s son then went to the Kaiser’s administrative building on Aug. 26, 2014, and demanded to speak with the higher-ups in administration and Kaiser’s Legal Department. As a result, Gonzalez’s son’s doctor, a clinical supervising doctor, and the assistant administrator of the Pain Management Department agreed that Gonzalez’s son should be referred for pain management care out of the Kaiser system. However, two days later, the physician in charge of approving or denying referrals of Kaiser’s patients to care outside of Kaiser (for which Kaiser must pay) blocked the outside referral, determining that proper care could be provided within the Kaiser system. Gonzalez claimed that when the referral was denied, Kaiser’s Compliance Department and the assistant administrator of the Pain Management Department began an investigation of her. She claimed they accused her of improperly accessing her son’s medical records when there was no care-related reason to do so and of performing a “pill count” on his medication, which was not within a medical assistant’s scope of practice, according to Kaiser. In October 2014, after an investigation that compared dates of when Gonzalez accessed her son’s medical records to the activity shown in his medical records, and after interviewing Gonzalez and many of her coworkers in the Pain Management Department, Kaiser terminated Gonzalez, claiming that she violated Kaiser’s policies by improperly accessing her son’s chart when she had no care-related reason to do so and for performing an unauthorized “pill count.” However, Gonzalez claimed that she was fired because of the costs associated with her son’s health care. Gonzalez sued her employers, Kaiser Foundation Health Plan Inc., The Permanente Medical Group Inc., and Southern California Permanente Medical Group Inc. (which was doing business as SoCal Permanente Medical Group). Gonzalez alleged that the defendants’ actions constituted associational disability discrimination, whistleblower retaliation, wrongful termination in violation of public policy, negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress, and unfair business practices. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan Inc. and The Permanente Medical Group were ultimately dismissed from the case. In addition, several of Gonzalez’s causes of action were dismissed either voluntarily or by way of defense motions. Thus, the matter continued against the Southern California Permanente Medical Group only on the remaining claim of associational disability discrimination. Plaintiff’s counsel argued that Gonzalez was terminated by Southern California Permanente Medical Group because of her association with her disabled son. Specifically, counsel argued that Gonzalez was terminated either because the medical group viewed her association with her son as a nuisance or inconvenience to the Kaiser system, or because of the costs and expenses associated with her son’s care. Gonzalez claimed that she only accessed her son’s medical records for care-related reasons, such as when her son had a request for information about his care. Plaintiff’s counsel also offered evidence that Gonzalez’s son was an open book about his medical issues in regard to his mother, including evidence that he gave Gonzalez a healthcare power of attorney in 2012, which gave her additional authority to view her son’s records. Defense counsel contended that Gonzalez was unsatisfied with the care that her son was receiving at Kaiser, so she repeatedly accessed her son’s chart when he was not treating at the facility where she was working and reviewed portions of his record that were not necessary to providing his day-to-day care. According to the Southern California Permanente Medical Group, between the spring of 2014 and the summer of that same year, Gonzalez’s son displayed patterns of “escalation,” in that he was allegedly taking more and more pain medication, including amounts beyond what was prescribed. Defense counsel pointed to Gonzalez’s son having failed a urine drug screen because he had medication in his system that wasn’t currently prescribed, having claimed to have lost medication to get another prescription, and having repeatedly sought early refills because he was taking medication at a rate beyond what was prescribed. Gonzalez’s coworkers testified that Gonzalez was allegedly defensive about issues with her son, interfered with his care, and was aggressive and intimidating. According to the Southern California Permanente Medical Group, in June 2014 or July 2014, while Gonzalez’s son was allegedly in “escalation” mode, Gonzalez’s coworkers approached Gonzalez’s son’s doctor to report their concerns that Gonzalez’s son was effectively drug-seeking and to report their concerns that Gonzalez was interfering with her son’s care and making it uncomfortable for them to have candid, frank discussions about Gonzalez’s son’s condition and care needs. As a result, on July 7, 2014, Gonzalez’s son’s doctor told Gonzalez’s son that he was being discharged from the pain management department and sent back to primary care due to there being a conflict of interest. Defense counsel contended that all employees of the Southern California Permanente Medical Group, including Gonzalez, are regularly trained on patient privacy guidelines that were adopted in compliance with Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) and that training specifically prohibited accessing family members’ health care records without a business reason to do so. Counsel argued that although Gonzalez claimed that her access of her son’s records took place within the scope of her regular work responsibilities, Southern California Permanente Medical Group policy does not permit access to family member’s medical records through the same portal that employees use to perform their daily work. In addition, defense counsel argued that when Gonzalez was initially confronted by superiors, she denied accessing her son’s records, but later admitted to performing a pill count on her son’s medication at a time when there was concern about his usage and when such a procedure is normally conducted by other, licensed personnel. Counsel further argued that Gonzalez later became verbally aggressive and combative with her colleagues. Thus, defense counsel argued that Gonzalez was fired for repeatedly accessing her son’s medical records without proper authorization and without adhering to the proper method of obtaining access to family member medical records in violation of policy. Defense counsel also noted that Gonzalez’s son continues to receive healthcare services from the Kaiser system., Gonzalez worked as a medical assistant in the Southern California Permanente Medical Group’s Pain Management Department at Kaiser Permanente San Diego Medical Center from 2002 until her termination in October 2014. She claimed that after her termination, she became so depressed that she qualified for disability benefits. Thus, Gonzalez sought recovery of approximately $8 million in total damages for her past and future loss of wages, and past and future emotional pain and suffering. She also sought recovery of punitive damages. Defense counsel argued that while Gonzalez sought counseling after her termination, Gonzalez had reported depressive symptoms for almost 10 years before her termination and had previously sought counseling for the same condition.