On June 15, 2010, plaintiff Margarita Macias, 49, an assembly worker, went to a 99 Cents Only store in Van Nuys. As she went to pay for her items, she slipped and fell in a puddle of water near the front entrance leading to the cash register. She claimed to her neck, and left shoulder, arm, wrist and leg. Macias sued 99 Cents Only Stores. She alleged that the defendant was negligent in the maintenance of the store, creating a dangerous condition. Macias claimed that a bag of ice was left on the floor, causing the puddle of water that she slipped in. She alleged that two employees walked by the area three times prior to her fall and should have found the dangerous condition using reasonable efforts. Thus, Macias claimed that the store had constructive notice of the dangerous slipping hazard and failed to take reasonable measures to clean up the puddle in compliance with the store’s policies. 99 Cents Only Stores contended that it had no actual or constructive notice of any dangerous condition and that its employees perform hourly inspections in accordance with the industry’s practice. Hence, it claimed it was not liable for the plaintiff’s ., Macias claimed soft-tissue to her neck, left shoulder, left arm, left wrist, and left leg. She claimed that she tried to work the day after the accident, but was sent home due to her . She subsequently sought treatment from her family physician and then sought the care of a chiropractor, which referred her to other specialists due to lingering problems. Macias continued treating with her chiropractor and underwent physical therapy 24 times. She also took Neurontin for 30 days to treat her pain symptoms. Macias sought recovery of $102,428 in total damages, including $13,269 for past medical costs, $29,160 for past lost earnings and an unspecified amount for her pain and suffering. Defense counsel argued that Macias did not suffer any serious injury from the incident in question, as she declined the medical care recommended to her by her health care providers. Counsel noted that Macias failed to return for follow-up visits, as requested by her providers, and declined steroid injections recommended by her doctor. Defense counsel also argued that as a result of being non-cooperative with treatment, the plaintiff failed to mitigate her medical damages. In addition, counsel argued that Macias failed to mitigate her lost earnings damages by not making any reasonable efforts to procure employment, including taking classes. Macias responded that she declined the recommended steroid injections because she was on too much medication. She also testified that she failed to return to the physicians because she believed that she needed a referral slip, but she admitted that she failed to ask to be re-referred to those providers.