On March 10, 2010, plaintiff John Verant, 44, a truck driver, underwent a surgical revision of his total hip prosthesis by Dr. David Gotham, an orthopedic surgeon. Post-operatively, Verant complained of ongoing and continuous pain and discomfort in the hip. He continued to see Gotham for approximately 18 months before eventually undergoing another hip revision by another orthopedic surgeon. Verant sued Dr. David Gotham; the surgeon’s medical office, David R. Gotham, Jr., D.O., Inc.; a registered nurse at Dr. Gotham’s medical office, Rebecca Gotham; and the hospital where the initial surgery was performed, Sutter Roseville Medical Center, which was being operated by Sutter Health Sacramento Sierra Region. Verant alleged that the defendants failed to properly perform the initial surgical revision and failed to properly treat his condition following the procedure. He alleged that these failures constituted medical malpractice. Nurse Rebecca Gotham, the medical office, and the hospital were ultimately dismissed from the case. Thus, the matter proceeded against Dr. David Gotham only. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that the subject revision surgery was negligently performed, as the acetabular cup was medialized and superiorized, increasing the risk of bone-on-bone impingement. Counsel also contended that the surgical screws were improperly placed and protruding into the soft-tissue. In addition, plaintiff’s counsel contended that Dr. Gotham ordered a CT scan of Verant’s hip during the post-operative period and that the scan revealed screws extending into the pelvis and muscle. However, counsel contended that Dr. Gotham failed to advise Verant of the finding and, rather, explained that Verant’s ongoing pain may be from incomplete consolidation of the bone graft. Defense counsel argued that the subject revision was complex and difficult in light of Verant’s prior hip surgeries. However, counsel admitted that the acetabular cup was somewhat medial, but contended that Dr. Gotham took the appropriate steps to offset the medial aspect and significantly preserved Verant’s leg length. Further, defense counsel argued that Dr. Gotham properly advised Verant of all radiographic findings, despite the absence of documentation in that regard., Verant claimed that continued to suffer hip pain for 18 months after the initial surgical revision of his total hip prosthesis. He claimed that as a result, he ultimately required a subsequent revision, which was performed by another orthopedic surgeon. Verant alleged that although the subsequent revision successfully resolved much of his ongoing complaints of pain and discomfort, his condition is ongoing. Thus, he claimed he missed two years of work and suffered from two to three years of ongoing pain and discomfort. He also claimed that he will need another surgical revision. All of Verant’s related medical expenses were covered by admissible collateral sources. Thus, he sought recovery of approximately $100,000 in lost wages, and recovery of damages for his past and future pain and suffering.