On the afternoon of Sept. 14, 2013, plaintiff Nonilia Valencia, a self-employed in upholstery worker in her 50s, was shopping in the produce area of a Northgate Gonzalez Markets store, in Santa Ana, when she slipped and fell. Valencia noted that there was a rice bin near the produce area and claimed that she slipped on a handful of oval-shaped rice that was on the floor. She claimed to her lower back. Valencia sued the owner of the store, Northgate Gonzalez, LLC, alleging that Northgate Gonzalez failed to properly maintain the store, creating a dangerous condition. Plaintiff’s counsel argued that Northgate Gonzalez failed to carry out regular inspections and failed to maintain the store in a safe manner. Counsel also argued that Northgate Gonzalez failed to properly investigate the incident. Specifically, plaintiff’s counsel contended that after the incident, the store failed to save proper video footage, take any photographs, and preserve evidence. The plaintiff’s safety expert opined that Northgate Gonzalez was negligent in its failure to maintain safety on the property. Defense counsel argued that Northgate Gonzalez was not negligent and that it did not cause the accident. The defense’s accident reconstruction expert opined that Northgate Gonzalez was not negligent in its maintenance of the store., Valencia claimed that she sustained bulging lumbar discs with narrowing at L1-2, L2-3, L3-4 and L4-5. She also claimed bulging discs with stenosis and an annular tear at the L4-5 level. Valencia subsequently presented to her physician and underwent a series of epidural injections one year after the incident. Valencia claimed that she had pain and discomfort in the area of her lower back, which prevented her from being able to work full-time. However, she alleged that the epidural injections provided her with relief and that approximately two years after the incident, she is mostly healed. However, Valencia claimed that she is still limited by pain in the area of her lower back. At the commencement of trial, plaintiff’s counsel advised the jury that Valencia had been recently scheduled to proceed with spinal surgery as a result of the subject incident and that the surgeon to perform the surgery, the plaintiff’s pain management expert, would be testifying, confirming Valencia’s need for the surgery. The plaintiff’s pain management expert opined that Valencia’s were related to the subject accident and that the epidural injections were reasonable and necessary. Defense counsel contended that Valencia’s were degenerative and not causally related to the accident. The defense’s orthopedic surgery expert opined that Valencia’s were not a result of the subject accident and that Valencia only sustained soft tissue , which should have resolved. In addition, defense counsel questioned Valencia’s alleged need for future surgery and presented a series of sub rosa surveillance films, which showed Valencia performing numerous activities of intense physical labor while performing her upholstery services in the parking lot of various locations. The footage also demonstrated Valencia’s trip to Raging Waters theme park and showed Valencia enjoying the park’s various features, including going down water slides.