In Heiner v. Kmart Corp. (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 335, plaintiff dentist was injured in an altercation with a security guard employed by Kmart. He sued, and claimed loss of future profits from his two dental offices. The trial court denied Kmart's motion in limine to exclude evidence of such profits on the ground that plaintiff had failed to comply with certain licensing requirements imposed by the Business and Professions Code. The case is distinguishable. The Court of Appeal first concluded that Kmart had waived the issue by failing to make an adequate offer of proof on the threshhold issue--whether the alleged licensing deficiencies were likely to lead to disciplinary proceedings that would have resulted in the disgorgement of profits by plaintiff. ( Id. at p. 344.) The court held defendant's argument that an expert's testimony about future profits should have been excluded because it was speculative was waived because defendant agreed to a lump-sum general verdict. The court explained: "In order to preserve this issue for appeal, it was incumbent upon Kmart to request a special verdict that would have segregated the elements of damages. Because Kmart failed to request a special verdict on the issue of damages, we have no way of determining what portion -- if any -- of the $ 3.8 million was awarded as compensation for future profits. Accordingly, any claim of error on this point may be deemed waived." ( Id. at p. 346.)