At around 3 a.m. on Sunday, June 17, 2012, plaintiff Leonel Andalis, 23, a food service/catering worker, was driving a 2006 Toyota Corolla on southbound Interstate 880, in Oakland. Andalis’ girlfriend, plaintiffs Katrina Viray, 21, a medical care employee/sterile processing technician, was a passenger in the front seat of Andalis’ car while Viray’s cousin, plaintiff Veronica Andaya, an unemployed 21 year old, was a passenger in the back seat. Andalis, Viray and Andaya were returning home from a club in San Francisco when their vehicle slowed for traffic that was merging due to construction. Subsequently, a 2007 Mini Cooper operated by Andrew Cassara rear-ended Andalis’ vehicle, causing major damage to the Corolla. The Mini Cooper’s airbag deployed, but Cassara was able to drive his car home. Andalis’ vehicle was totaled, and no one reported an injury at the scene, so Andalis, Viray and Andaya took a cab home. However, Andalis later claimed to his neck, back and hip, and Viray and Andaya each claimed to their back. Andalis, Viray and Andaya sued Cassara, alleged that Cassara was negligent in the operation of his vehicle. Specifically, they claimed that Cassara was traveling freeway speed at the time of the accident and failed to slow for the traffic that was slowing for construction. Cassara claimed he slowed to approximately 15 mph by the time of the collision., Andalis, Viray and Andaya all presented to a chiropractor with complaints of pain and started treatment three days after the accident. Andalis claimed to his neck and clavicle, as well as claimed he had pain to his middle and lower back. He subsequently treated with a chiropractor from June 20, 2012, through Sept. 5, 2012. He then allegedly followed up with a physician one or two times later. However, Andalis claimed that he still has continuing pain to his back and right hip. Viray went to an urgent care center on the day after the accident and saw a medical doctor. She claimed to her middle and lower back. Viray was ultimately diagnosed with muscle strains and she was advised to follow up with her primary care doctor in one to two weeks, if she did not feel better. She subsequently treated with a chiropractor from June 20, 2012, through Sept. 19, 2012. She also made approximately three accident-related visits to her primary care doctor. However, Viray claimed that she continues to suffer pain and that she did not have any prior, similar complaints. Andaya went with her cousin, Viray, to the urgent care center on the day after the accident. She claimed soft-tissue to her middle and lower back. She was also ultimately diagnosed with muscle strains and advised to follow up with her primary care doctor in one to two weeks, if she did not feel better. Andaya subsequently treated with a chiropractor from June 20, 2012, through Sept. 26, 2012. Per her chiropractor, Andaya also claimed short-term memory deficits. In addition, Andaya claimed that she continues to suffer back pain as a result of the accident. The chiropractic billings totaled $6,615 for Andalis, $6,915 for Viray, and $6,825 for Andaya. However, their medical payment coverage paid for the chiropractic treatment, reducing the charges to $5,000 each for two of the plaintiffs, and to approximately $4,700 for the third plaintiff. Thus, the parties stipulated to $5,000 in chiropractic charges for each plaintiff. Andalis, Viray and Andaya also sought recovery of an unspecified amount for their total future care, which included physical therapy. Viray also claimed $250 in lost wages. Thus, plaintiffs’ counsel asked the jury to award the plaintiffs $15,000 in chiropractic charges ($5,000 per plaintiff), $105,000 in general damages for their pain and suffering ($35,000 per plaintiff), $250 in wage loss for Viray, and an unspecified amount for the plaintiffs’ alleged future care. Defense counsel contended that even though Viray denied having prior similar back complaints, her medical records included a March 27, 2007 reference to back pain. Defense counsel also argued that the plaintiffs’ parallel courses of chiropractic care were more for purposes of building up litigation, rather than for real treatment.