On July 8, 2010, at approximately 4 p.m., the plaintiff, a 42-year-old attorney, was visiting friends with her husband and two children at a San Diego resort hotel pool complex. While she was walking near the entrance to the pool carrying her friends’ 12-month-old baby, she suddenly slipped on the pool deck surface and twisted her ankle. As a result, the woman went crashing to the cement with the baby in her arms. The woman sued the company that owned and operated the hotel and time share resort. The plaintiff alleged that the resort was negligent in its maintenance of the pool deck at the pool complex, creating a dangerous condition. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that the plaintiff slipped in an area where large patches of the pool deck’s non-slip, safety surface were worn away, resulting in a dangerously slippery hazard to guests. Counsel also contended the area blended in with the surrounding deck surface, and was otherwise invisible, undetectable and camouflaged, which caused the plaintiff’s foot to suddenly, unexpectedly and without warning, slip when it encountered the slick pool deck surface. Defense counsel initially disputed the allegations of negligence, contending that the plaintiff failed to exercise ordinary care when walking by the pool, which caused or contributed to her own . Counsel also contended that the plaintiff assumed the risk of injury because it is known and expected that water on a pool deck could be slippery. However, after extensive discovery and a site inspection by the plaintiff’s experts, the defendant ultimately stipulated to liability and causation for the plaintiff’s ., After the incident, the plaintiff immediately went by herself to Urgent Care for treatment. She was initially diagnosed with an anterior-posterior tibiofibular ligament sprain (a high ankle sprain) with a peroneus longus low-grade partial tear in her left ankle. After continuing to suffer significant pain and swelling, the plaintiff’s orthopedic surgeon expressed concerns regarding her risk of development of a complex regional pain syndrome, also known as reflex sympathetic dystrophy or causalgia, a chronic pain condition. Upon thorough evaluation, it was determined by her physicians that the plaintiff was suffering from every single one of the Budapest Criteria symptoms, the accepted diagnosis criteria for CRPS. The plaintiff was officially diagnosed with bilateral, lower extremity CRPS by her doctors in October 2010. The plaintiff described her severe pain as “shooting, stabbing, sharp, hot/burning, tender, fearful and punishing/cruel,” as well suffering “periodic heat and cold, pins-and-needles sensation, broken bone sensation, periodic bruising, periodic swelling, mystery bruises,” fatigue, abnormal skin discoloration, decreased mobility, lack of range of motion, numbness tingling, achy, dull, throbbing pain, sweating and abnormal hair growth. She claimed that as a result, she lost motion in her left ankle and had chronic, continuing pain, including nerve pain and swelling. She also claimed her ankle pain caused her to suffer a loss of bladder control, severe emotional distress, and a complete loss of quality and enjoyment of life. The plaintiff underwent seven procedures for lumbar sympathetic blocks and extensive physical therapy, neither of which provided any alleged significant relief. She claimed that by March 2011, her CRPS had spread to her right leg, resulting in nerve pain and swelling in that ankle as well, and was ultimately diagnosed with bilateral lower extremity CRPS. As a result, a spinal cord stimulator was implanted in the plaintiff’s spine with the hope of partially masking the chronic pain caused by the CRPS. However, the plaintiff suffered a postoperative infection and developed urinary incontinence following the implantation. The plaintiff claimed that as a result of the severe, searing pain and accompanying incessant symptoms of CRPS that could be triggered by any activity, she could barely execute basic daily activities, let alone effectively perform her job as an attorney. One of the plaintiff’s experts, an internal medicine and rheumatology physician with a special focus on Reflex Sympathetic Dystrophy and other chronic pain conditions, and who is a pioneer in the field of CRPS research, diagnosis, and treatment, opined that the plaintiff’s condition was so debilitating that she would be unable to work in any capacity within four to five years. Thus, the plaintiff sought recovery of $89,262.35 in medical costs, as well as an unspecified amount of damages for her loss of earnings and pain and suffering. The defense’s rheumatology expert conceded that the plaintiff suffered from CRPS, but opined that her pain was not as severe as she claimed and that the pathologic entity of CRPS tends to burn out over time. Further, the expert opined that the plaintiff will be able to work as an attorney through her work life expectancy. However, plaintiff’s counsel responded that the defense’s pathologic entity argument regarding CRPS was unsupported by the medical literature and contrary to the positions of well-respected CRPS medical experts, including the plaintiff’s rheumatology expert, who confirmed that the natural history of CRPS is for it to worsen.