On Jan. 4, 2012, plaintiff Trang Duong, 34, a manicurist, was with her two sisters and her sister-in-law, shopping at the Shun Fat Supermarket, in San Diego, when she slipped and fell at the checkout stand. Duong claimed she suffered a traumatic brain injury. The incident and its aftermath were captured on the store surveillance video. Duong sued Shun Fat Supermarket Inc., alleging the defendant failed to timely repair and/or maintain the area by the checkout stand, creating a dangerous condition. Duong claimed she slipped and fell on ice cream or water that was spilled near the checkout stand. She also claimed that store personnel had notice of the spill, but failed to clean it up because the janitor was on his lunch break. Duong admitted to leaving the store after the accident, but she claimed she developed extreme dizziness and was ‘`unable to move” soon thereafter. She alleged that as a result, her sisters put her in their vehicle and returned to the store to request that paramedics be called. Duong and her sister both claimed that after returning to the store, they overheard the cashier tell another employee that she had prior knowledge of the spill, but did not have time to clean it up. Personnel of Shun Fat Supermarket denied having prior knowledge of the spill, and claimed that the checkout stand area had been inspected 20 minutes before the incident, when the cashier opened the checkout stand. Defense counsel contended that k in after they called their brother and he arrived at the scene to meet his family. Counsel argued that the sisters’ claim that they overheard tDuong and her sisters did not come back into the store immediately to report an emergency situation, but only came bache cashier making admissions of prior knowledge of the spill was fabricated. Counsel also argued that store personnel had no notice of the spill and that the checkout stand had been inspected less than 20 minutes earlier, when the checkout stand was opened. In addition, defense counsel argued that even though the store is only six miles from the hospital and that Duong’s brother, whom she called first, arrived at the store before the paramedics, Duong did not arrive at the hospital until 1.5 hours after the accident., Duong claimed she struck her head during the fall and suffered a mild traumatic brain injury resulting in severe memory impairment, cognition problems and depression. She alleged that as a result, she will require attendant and medical care for the rest of her life. She also claimed that the fall aggravated her facet arthritis, a cervical spine injury, and that she will require a cervical fusion. Defense counsel noted that Duong had a pre-existing Chiari malformation of her brain that resulted in a large fluid-filled cyst extending from her brain stem down through her cervical and thoracic spine. Counsel contended that this pre-existing condition affected the nerves in Duong’s arms and hands, causing atrophy of her arm and hand muscles and affected her ability to work as a manicurist. However, Duong alleged that her condition was manageable pre-accident and that she did not have any cognitive complaints or emotional overlays before her fall. Thus, Duong claimed that as a result of the accident and trauma to her brain, she suffered an onset of severe headaches, cognitive difficulties, increased memory loss and severe depression. She eventually underwent a craniotomy in August 2012, but due to her severe depression and cognitive difficulties, she was unable to live independently and had to move in with her sister. Duong claimed that she now requires attendant care and rehabilitative therapy for the rest of her life. She alleged that she is unable to manage her own affairs or care for her two minor children. The plaintiff’s retained neurology expert, Dr. Michael Lobatz, examined Duong post-accident, and recommended neuropsychological testing and a repeat MRI brain imaging. He testified that the neuropsychological testing demonstrated severe depression and cognitive deficits consistent with a traumatic brain injury. Specifically, Lobatz testified that Duong underwent a diffusion tensor imaging of the brain using a 3.0 Telsa MRI, which identified microbleeds that are consistent with a traumatic brain injury. Regarding Duong’s pre-existing facet arthrosis of her cervical spine, Duong claimed the subject incident aggravated her condition, causing her arthritis to become symptomatic. According to the plaintiff’s expert neurosurgeon, Dr. John Cleary, arthritis created neuroforaminal narrowing that would require a surgical fusion/laminectomy in the near future. Duong sought recovery of $11,000 in past medical costs, $800,000 in future medical costs, and $1.5 million for attendant care. She also sought recovery of damages for her past and future pain and suffering. Thus, plaintiff’s counsel asked the jury to award Duong in excess of $5 million in total damages. Defense counsel contended that the surveillance video from the store did not depict someone in significant distress. Thus, counsel argued that Duong did not suffer an organic brain injury, as evidenced by the emergency room records, which indicated no loss of consciousness, and CT and MRI scans of the brain and head, which indicated no evidence of trauma or an intracranial hemorrhage. Defense counsel also argued that none of the medical professionals that treated Duong before or after the accident for the pre-existing Chiari malformation made a diagnosis of a brain injury. Counsel contended that the subsequent 3.0 Telsa MRI of the brain was not diagnostic of an intracranial hemorrhage because there was no evidence of an intracranial hemorrhage on the day of the incident or on subsequent MRIs taken of Duong’s brain. Counsel also contended that the neuropsychological testing was not diagnostic of a traumatic brain injury because there was no evidence of an organic injury to Duong’s brain and that Duong’s complaints of a headache, cervical pain and lack of sleep were a continuation of her pre-accident symptom complex. Thus, defense counsel argued that Duong’s symptom complex of progressively worse cognitive deficits without evidence of an organic brain injury was not consistent with someone who had suffered an organic brain injury.