On July 9, 2009, plaintiff Sarah Ruggera, 51, a psychotherapist, presented to Vitreous Floaters Solution, a medical practice in Irvine that exclusively treats eye floaters. The practice is operated by Dr. James Johnson, a board certified ophthalmologist. Ruggera told Johnson that she suffered from eye floaters since age 11 and described them as being like “worms, flies, spider webs and shadows.” She also told the doctor that there were “floaters everywhere” and that she was aware of them “all the time.” As a result, Johnson treated both eyes with a YAG laser, which emits bursts of energy into the posterior part of the eye to break up and diminish the floaters. During the sixth YAG treatment, Johnson claimed that a minor change in positioning of the laser, while it was in his control, resulted in an unanticipated and unexpected emission of a rogue wave of energy near the retina, causing a small sub-retinal contusion and a hemorrhage resulting in a .5 centimeter choroid scar on Ruggera’s retina, near her macula. Ruggera sued Johnson and Vitreous Floaters Solution. She alleged that the defendants were negligent in the use of the YAG laser and that this negligence constituted medical malpractice. Ruggera’s counsel contended that the defendants were negligent for using the YAG laser to treat eye floaters in the posterior part of the eye, which was a non-Food-and-Drug-Administration-approved, off-label use of the laser. The plaintiff’s expert ophthalmologist testified that there have not been any significant clinical studies supporting the efficacy of the YAG laser treatment of floaters, and that it is an experimental procedure. The expert also contended that the use of the laser to treat floaters in the back of the eye, near a patient’s retina, is unreasonably dangerous and is a deviation from the standard of care. Defense counsel argued that the use of the YAG laser is a safe and effective treatment for eye floaters. Counsel contended that the injury that occurred was an extremely rare and unexpected outcome, but that it was a known risk of the procedure to which Ruggera knowingly consented., Ruggera sustained a sub-retinal contusion and hemorrhage during the sixth YAG procedure. She claimed that as a result, she now has a permanent scar on her retina, near her macula, causing her to suffer from scotoma, or a permanent blind spot, in the left eye. She also claimed she now suffers visual aberrations, flashing lights, discomfort and headaches, causing her to have difficulty reading and anxiety. Ruggera alleged that she now requires an annual eye exam for the remainder of her life in order to determine whether her blind spot would progress. She also alleged that she now requires evaluations to watch for the development of macular degeneration due to the proximate to the macula. Thus, Ruggera claimed $3,730 in past medical costs, and sought recovery of $35,000 in damages for her future medical costs and $750,000 in damages for her past and future pain and suffering. Defense counsel requested a defense verdict, but acknowledged that if damages were awarded, the amounts alleged by the plaintiff should be reasonable.