On Aug. 26, 2011, plaintiff Kristi Scheiber, 40, a California State employee, was driving a 1999 Mercury Villager in Sacramento with her sister, plaintiff Sherry O’Connor, an unemployed 40 year old, seated in the front passenger seat. While they were stopped at the intersection of 16th and I Streets, their vehicle was rear-ended by a vehicle operated by Julie Strahl. No emergency personnel were called, and both vehicles were driven from the scene. However, Scheiber and O’Connor each claimed to necks, mid-back, and lower back. Scheiber and O’Connor sued Strahl, alleging that Strahl was negligent in the operation of her vehicle. Strahl conceded liability., Scheiber and O’Connor both claimed soft tissue to their spine. O’Connor claimed that she suffered a soft tissue injury to her lower back, while Scheiber claimed soft tissue to her neck and back. Scheiber presented to a chiropractor the day after the collision, but was sent to an emergency room, as her treating chiropractor believed that Scheiber had suffered a concussion. At the E.R., Scheiber denied neck pain or striking her head. She also denied having radicular symptoms, but claimed she had pain in her mid- and lower back. The E.R. physician noted that he believed Scheiber was “exaggerating” her responses to palpation. Thus, Scheiber was diagnosed with strains and sprains to her middle and lower back. The next day, Scheiber presented to her treating chiropractor with complaints of pain to her neck and lower back, as well as complained of radicular symptoms. She also told the chiropractor that she had struck the steering wheel during the collision. In addition, Scheiber later complained of urinary incontinence related to the accident. Scheiber claimed that despite undergoing chiropractic treatment, she continues to suffer ongoing pain. O’Connor presented to her primary care doctor five days after the collision, on Aug. 31, 2011, and complained of lower back pain and bowel incontinence. However, she denied having any neck pain at that time, and she showed normal range of motion and normal neurological responses. Thus, she was determined to just have a backache and was prescribed pain medication, which she declined. O’Connor treated with a chiropractor, but claimed that she continues to suffer ongoing pain. She also claimed that her incontinence continued and that she still required treatment five years post-incident. At trial, Scheiber and O’Connor claimed that they each suffered soft tissue . Evidence of more significant were presented, but plaintiffs’ counsel declined to associate those to the subject crash. The plaintiffs’ treating chiropractor opined that both Scheiber and O’Connor would benefit from additional chiropractic treatment. Defense counsel denied the plaintiffs’ alleged were caused by the subject collision, noting that the plaintiffs’ complaints changed and that the E.R. physician believed that Scheiber was exaggerating her alleged pain. The defense’s expert orthopedic surgeon conceded that, based on their subjective complaints, Scheiber and O’Connor both suffered strain-and-sprain . However, the expert opined that the objective physical findings did not warrant the treatment received, but that, based on the serious nature of the complaints, additional diagnostic studies were necessary to rule out the alleged. Defense counsel argued that the minimal damage to the plaintiffs’ vehicle was complicated by apparent pre-existing damage. Counsel contended that minimal damage on Strahl’s vehicle did not line up with the damage that the plaintiffs’ claimed their vehicle received. In addition, the defense’s biomechanics expert testified that all of the alleged damage to the rear of the plaintiffs’ vehicle could not have come from the subject accident. In response, O’Connor and Scheiber both denied there was any prior damage to their vehicle and claimed that the tow truck must have caused the damage to front of their vehicle.