On July 12, 2012, plaintiff Robyn Bertsch, 62, a cake decorator, was to undergo a robotic hysterectomy and colposuspension. The procedure was to be performed by Dr. John Missanelli. Prior to surgery, Bertsch complained of pelvic pain. She subsequently underwent a sonogram pre-operatively and was diagnosed with a large uterine fibroid, which is a noncancerous growth on the uterus. It was determined that Bertsch would undergo surgery to treat the fibroid and a vaginal prolapse. During the July 2012 procedure, Missanelli removed the 600-gram uterus, which took approximately three hours. Once the uterus was removed, Missanelli felt the prolapse was self-correcting due to the weight of the uterus being removed from the cervix. As a result, he did not perform the colposuspension. Six months later, Bertsch complained that her prolapse symptoms remained, requiring her to undergo a colposuspension by another surgeon. Bertsch sued Missanelli, alleging that Missanelli failed to properly treat her condition and that this failure constituted medical malpractice. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that it was below the standard of care to not perform the colposuspension at the time of the July 2012 surgery. Counsel also contended that because the July 2012 surgery was not completed, Bertsch had to undergo a second surgery. The plaintiff’s expert general surgeon opined that it was a violation of the standard of care to not complete the procedure during the July 2012 surgery. The expert also opined that Missanelli violated the standard of care in his post-operative pain management of Bertsch in that Missanelli should have provided Bertsch with stronger pain medications post-operatively. Defense counsel argued that, at the time of the surgery, it was within Missanelli’s judgment to not perform the colposuspension. Counsel contended that Missanelli appropriately felt that further surgery at the time was likely to create a significant risk to Bertsch, who already was under three hours of surgery. Counsel also contended that Missanelli appropriately felt that it was more likely than not that the vaginal prolapse would correct on its own. Thus, defense counsel argued that Missanelli’s use of judgment was not a violation of the standard of care. The defense’s ob/gyn expert opined that Missanelli’s decision to not perform the colposuspension was an appropriate judgment call done within the standard of care., Bertsch claimed she still had vaginal prolapse symptoms after the July 2012 surgery. As a result, she underwent the colposuspension by another surgeon six months after the initial surgery. Bertsch claimed she had additional pain and discomfort during the six-month period between the two surgeries. Thus, she sought recovery of $10,000 in economic damages and $250,000 in non-economic damages.