On Feb. 21, 2013, plaintiff Joanna Retana-Beiza, 21, a college student, accounting worker and seasonal volunteer, was driving with her relative, plaintiff Flor-Giselle Leon, a minor, as a front seat passenger. While traveling in Los Angeles, the rear, driver’s side wheel well of their vehicle was struck by the front, passenger headlight of a vehicle operated by Martina Boutte, who was attempting a lane change. Retana-Beiza claimed to her neck, upper back, and left shoulder. Flor-Giselle also claimed from the collision. Retana-Beiza, individually, and Flor-Giselle, though a guardian ad litem, sued Ms. Boutte. Retana-Beiza and Flor-Giselle alleged that Ms. Boutte was negligent in the operation of her vehicle. Michael Boutte was also sued, but he was dismissed from the case once he was found to be the incorrect party. In addition, Flor-Giselle settled out of the case. Thus, the matter continued with only Retana-Beiza’s claims against Ms. Boutte. Ms. Boutte ultimately admitted liability., Retana-Beiza claimed soft tissue to her neck; left, upper shoulder; and left, upper back. She claimed the impact caused her seat belt to lock and thus, injure her shoulder. As a result, she presented to an urgent care facility on the day of the collision and was referred to a physician’s assistant, who prescribed a cortisone injection and ordered an MRI for diagnosis purposes because Retana-Beiza could not move her shoulder without severe pain. The MRI of her left shoulder showed mild supraspinatus tendinitis. However, Retana-Beiza claimed the cortisone injection did not help, so she was prescribed physical therapy. She then sought a second opinion from an orthopedic surgeon, who evaluated her and concurred that the diagnosis and treatment were accurate. As a result, Retana-Beiza underwent 15 physical therapy sessions before returning to the orthopedic surgeon for another evaluation. Retana-Beiza claimed that her had fully resolved within two months of the collision, after she underwent 15 physical therapy sessions. However, she alleged that she sometimes has very rare, light discomfort when the weather was cold. The plaintiff’s orthopedic expert testified that it was reasonable for Retana-Beiza to seek care from the urgent care facility, which sent her to a physician’s assistant, who prescribed the cortisone injection and ordered the MRI. The expert also opined that all of the treatment and charges were reasonable and necessary. Thus, Retana-Beiza sought recovery of past medical costs and damages for her past pain and suffering. She did not make a claim for any future pain and suffering or non-economic damages. Defense counsel disputed causation and damages. Counsel contended that the accident was minor, with minimal damage to either vehicles. Counsel also contended that Retana-Beiza never complained of any pain at the scene, and no ambulance or police were called. Defense counsel argued that even if Retana-Beiza sustained , that the costs were unreasonable. Moreover, counsel argued that the cortisone injection to the shoulder was not reasonable or necessary. Defense counsel conceded that if Retana-Beiza was injured, it would be reasonable for her to go to the emergency room and to have several physical therapy sessions. However, counsel argued that no MRI was warranted. The defense’s expert orthopedic surgeon opined that if Retana-Beiza was injured, it was reasonable for her to go to the emergency room for X-rays, to have several physical therapy sessions, and to consult with a specialist. However, the expert opined that the cortisone injections were not reasonable and that the MRI was not indicated.