On July 7, 2013, plaintiff Kathy Clay, an unemployed 29 year old, was standing on the side of the road when she was approached by Greg Papik, a peace officer with the Los Angeles Police Department who was involved in an undercover sting operation. Clay entered Papik’s undercover police vehicle and was asked some questions. However, when she asked him for money, Papik asked her to exit the vehicle and told her she was under arrest. When she refused to exit the car, Papik grabbed her left arm. Clay claimed that Papik pulled her out of the car and used excessive force during her arrest. She claimed that as a result, she sustained of her ankles and wrists. Clay was brought to the Foothill Division of the city’s police department, where she was issued a citation for loitering for the purposes of prostitution, a misdemeanor. Clay sued Papik, alleging that Papik’s actions constituted excessive force, in violation of 42 USC § 1983. Clay denied that she was soliciting prostitution and claimed that after she entered Papik’s undercover police vehicle, she was asked if she could pick up food, for which he would give her some money. However, she claimed that when she asked him for money, Papik became visibly upset, asked her to exit the vehicle, and told her that she was under arrest. Clay further claimed that when she refused to exit the car, Papik pulled her out of the vehicle, slammed her to the ground, and pulled her arms behind her back in a violent manner. The plaintiff’s expert in police policies and procedures testified that when Clay refused to get out of the car, Papik should have called his supervisor to the scene to assist in removing her from the vehicle. The expert also opined that the level of force used to restrain and, ultimately, arrest Clay was inappropriate and excessive. He also opined that it was unreasonable for Papik to grab Clay’s arm and slam her onto the car and/or pavement. The expert testified that, instead, Papik should have called his supervisor and requested assistance in performing the arrest. Papik disputed Clay’s version of the incident, claiming that there was talk of prostitution-related activities in the vehicle. He also claimed that after he told Clay to get out of the vehicle and that she was under arrest, he exited the vehicle, walked around to the passenger’s side, opened door, and again asked Clay to exit the vehicle a number of times, but that she refused to comply. Papik acknowledged grabbing Clay’s left arm to remove her from the vehicle and arrest her, but he claimed that she tried to flee the scene, and subsequently tripped and fell onto the pavement. He further denied ever yanking Clay’s arms behind her back or slamming her onto the pavement. The defense’s expert in police practices and procedures opined that the force used in executing Clay’s arrest was not excessive. The expert also opined that Papik followed police protocol/procedure in that Papik identified one of Clay’s wrists as being already bandaged, which prompted him to call his supervisor and request large, “flex” handcuffs before formally placing Clay under arrest. He further opined that because Clay repeatedly tried to get up from the ground, Papik employed the correct technique to try to control/restrain Clay and that the supervisor helped Papik by placing one knee on Clay’s buttocks and controlling Clay’s free arm., Clay claimed that she sustained a fracture of her right, dominant wrist and an aggravation of a pre-existing left wrist condition, and soft-tissue to her left ankle. Several hours after the incident, Clay presented to the emergency room at a local hospital and complained of pain that stemmed from her wrists. She subsequently underwent minor treatment and was released from the emergency unit later that day. Clay then began a course of physical therapy treatment immediately following the incident and were rendered one-to-two times per week over a period of more than three years. Clay claimed that the force Papik used to restrain her legs, arms, and torso caused of her wrists and left ankle. She claimed that as a result, she now experiences a decreased range of motion in her wrists and pain with the use of her left ankle. She further claimed that over the next five years, at least, she will require additional physical therapy treatments and the performance of home exercises. In addition, Clay claimed that she requires over-the-counter medications to manage her residual symptoms on an as-needed basis. Thus, Clay sought recovery of punitive damages and compensatory damages in the amount of $1.3 million. Defense counsel argued that the force used during Clay’s arrest did not cause the alleged . Counsel also argued that Clay’s left-sided wrist injury was pre-existing and not exacerbated by the encounter. The defenses’ orthopedics expert testified that Clay only suffered minor strains and sprains of her left ankle and right wrist and that Clay made a good recovery after the incident. The expert also opined that Clay does not require any future treatment in connection with the subject arrest.