On Jan. 9, 2018, plaintiff Vincent Whelan, 31, a pediatrician, fell while ascending some stairs at a Hooters Restaurant on Hollywood Boulevard, in Hollywood. Whelan sustained to his left leg. Whelan sued the owner and operator of the restaurant, Hollywood Wings LLC, and the manager of the location, David Loerke. Whelan alleged that the defendants failed to repair the top step, creating a dangerous condition. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that there was an uneven surface at the top of the stairs that may or may not have been covered by a floor mat that the uneven surfaced caused Whelan to trip and fall. Specifically, counsel contended that the uneven surface caused Whelan’s foot to get caught, which resulted in a recovery step on a step below, the third step, but it was unsuccessful. Plaintiff’s counsel argued that the restaurant had ample opportunity to repair the defective condition, but that it chose not to repair it. Defense counsel contended that the condition of the top step was not dangerous, but, rather, “just ugly.” Counsel also noted that Whelan’s own sworn deposition testimony indicated that he only made it to the third step, and not to the top of the stairs, where the alleged dangerous condition was later determined to be located. Counsel also pointed out that Whelan testified under oath that he believed that he slipped because it had been raining that day. Defense counsel contended that Whelan avowed to that fact countless times in his deposition and chose not to make corrections to his testimony when given the opportunity to do so. As such, defense counsel argued that Whelan had not reached the top of the stairs, where the alleged defective condition was located, and slipped and fell on account of Whelan’s own lack of attentiveness. The defense’s human factors expert opined that Whelan was inattentive and not looking at the steps, likely causing him to miss a step. The defense’s injury biomechanics expert opined that Whelan’s body movements were consistent with the mechanics of a misstep, and not of a slip or trip. The expert also testified that, based on his assessment of Whelan’s gait pattern in the surveillance footage, Whelan must have only reached the third step and was not in the area of the alleged defective condition at the time of his fall., Whelan sustained a fracture of his left femur. He was immediately taken to Hollywood Presbyterian Medical Center, in Los Angeles, and then flown to the University of California, San Francisco Medical Center, in San Francisco, so that an orthopedic specialist could perform a surgical repair of the fracture. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that the femur fracture and subsequent trauma of having a rod and pins placed into his femur caused Whelan to suffer a flare up of his fibrodysplasia ossificans progressive condition in the entirety of his left hip and leg. Whelan was originally diagnosed with FOP at age 9. The extremely rare and incurable genetic condition, where muscles and other connective tissue turn into bone following trauma or as part of the inevitable progression of the disease, is often referred to as “stone man syndrome” because an appendage can completely ossify and appear to turn into stone. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that Whelan’s FOP flared up as a result of the accident and subsequent surgery, and caused Whelan’s left hip and lower extremity to completely ossify. Counsel argued that Whelan was thereafter confined to an electric wheelchair and will be for the rest of his life. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that Whelan, an eggshell plaintiff, was a medical doctor who had to forego a pediatric oncology fellowship that he was accepted into and that Whelan could no longer work as a hospitalist or pediatric oncologist in the future. Whelan sought recovery of $15 million in damages for his pain and suffering, and a range of $4.6 million to $13.7 million in lost earnings. Defense counsel disputed Whelan’s alleged future loss of earnings, arguing that it was excessive on account of the fact that Whelan, a person with FOP, would likely only live and work into his early 50s. Otherwise, defense counsel did not did not dispute Whelan’s damages. In response, plaintiff’s counsel argued that, prior to the subject incident, Whelan had a long and bright future ahead of him.