On Nov. 7, 2012, plaintiff Peggy Reyes, 51, an office worker, slipped and fell at a Pick up Stix restaurant in San Bernardino. Reyes claimed to her neck, lower back and right knee. Reyes sued the believed operators of the restaurant, Pick up Stix, Pick up Stix Inc., Stix Holdings, LLC and Stix Restaurant Holdings, LLC. Reyes alleged that the operators of the restaurant were negligent in the maintenance of the floor, creating a dangerous condition. Pick up Stix and Pick up Stix Inc. were dismissed from the case, and the matter only continued against Stix Restaurant Holdings and Stix Holdings. Reyes claimed that the defendants improperly maintained the restaurant floor, causing her to slip and fall., Reyes claimed she sustained a tear of the right knee’s meniscus, and herniated cervical and lumbar discs. She also claimed her caused her to suffer radiculopathy, fibromyalgia, and chronic pain to her neck, back and right knee. Reyes underwent two arthroscopies of her right knee, abnormal nerve studies and imaging studies. She also received pain injections, which included ketorolac, cortisone/steroid, trigger point and epidural injections. Reyes treated with her primary doctors at a Kaiser facility for a number of years following the incident, during which time she also took pain medication for her neck and back pain. Reyes’ treatment tapered off significantly in 2015 and 2016. She then began treating outside of Kaiser with doctors referred by her attorneys in 2017. The new physicians recommended a total knee replacement, an anterior cervical discectomy and fusion, and a lumbar fusion. However, Reyes did not undergo any of the proposed procedures in the 6.5 years leading up to trial. She claimed that she had signed consent forms to have her treating neurosurgery expert perform the anterior cervical discectomy and fusion procedure on her in late 2017, but that the procedure was delayed because of a diagnosis of a parotid tumor, which was removed in April 2018. Reyes claimed that she then contacted another treating neurosurgery expert and scheduled the surgery. Plaintiff’s counsel brought several experts to testify, including three surgeons, all of who claimed that Reyes needed surgery. Specifically, the plaintiff’s treating expert neurosurgeon testified that, after their first consultation, he recommended that Reyes undergo the anterior cervical discectomy and fusion procedure. The plaintiff’s expert orthopedic surgeon, who saw Reyes once in November 2018, testified to recommending that Reyes undergo a total right knee replacement. In addition, the plaintiff’s expert radiologist opined that Reyes had sustained a meniscal tear, but his opinion did not form the basis for the plaintiff’s expert orthopedic surgeon’s opinion that Reyes needed a total knee replacement. The plaintiff’s expert life care planner opined that the reasonable cost or “value” of the proposed future treatment, as recommended by Reyes’ doctors, was $1,006,000. The expert testified over defense counsel’s objection that the alleged reasonable cost of the alleged future treatment was not the appropriate measure of future damages. Reyes’ past medical costs of approximately $100,000 were waived and did not come into evidence. During closing arguments, plaintiff’s counsel asked the jury to award $1,006,000 for Reyes’ future medical costs, and $500,000 to $700,000 for Reyes’ past general damages. Counsel did not ask the jury to award a specific amount for future pain and suffering, but, instead, “trusted the jury” to award the right number. Defense counsel disputed Reyes’ alleged , especially Reyes’ alleged residual complaints. Specifically, counsel noted that Reyes’ treatment had tapered off and that additional treatment was only recommended after Reyes presented to the attorney-referred doctors. Counsel also noted that Reyes did not undergo any of the recommended treatment during the 6.5 years that lead up to trial. A significant point of contention was the admissibility of evidence as to the amounts already for the proposed future care alleged by Reyes’ experts. The court allowed evidence of the “reasonable value” or “reasonable cost” of the proposed future surgeries. However, defense counsel was largely precluded from admitting evidence as to the amounts typically accepted as payment (from whatever source) for the proposed future procedures. The defense’s evidence was precluded pursuant to plaintiff’s counsel’s objection and Pebley v. Santa Clara Organics. The defense’s expert radiologist testified that he reviewed pre-incident imaging studies of Reyes and determined that Reyes had pre-existing degenerative changes. The defense’s expert orthopedic surgeon testified about Reyes’ alleged degenerative cervical and lumbar conditions. He also opined that Reyes did not have a meniscal tear and, thus, did not need a total knee replacement. The expert further opined that Reyes’ fall did not produce the level of trauma required to make her pre-existing, degenerative conditions symptomatic and that Reyes’ pre-existing, degenerative cervical and lumbar conditions were not related or attributable to the incident. In addition, the defense’s expert orthopedic surgeon opined that Reyes required no further care related to the incident after 2014. In response, Reyes asserted that she had no pre-existing complaints of pain to her neck, back or right knee and that any degenerative conditions she may have had were asymptomatic and made symptomatic because of the incident. However, on cross-examination, Reyes’ testimony was elicited to impeach her claims about the severity of her pain and her alleged limitations. This included the use of a sub rosa video that showed Reyes moving a dishwasher across her front yard and into her garage.