On Jan. 3, 2009, at approximately 2 p.m., plaintiff Thomas Treshler, 55, was driving south on State Route 108 in Sinora during a snowstorm when he was broadsided a vehicle operated by Gurvax Dhillon, who was making a three-point-turn from southbound 108 onto the northbound side. Treshler primarily claimed an injury to his lower back. Treshler sued Dhillon (originally erroneously sued as Curbax Kaur Dhillon). Treshler alleged that Dhillon was negligent in the operation of his vehicle. Dhillon admitted liability for the accident, and the matter proceeded to a trial on causation and damages., Treshler went to his primary care doctor on Jan. 6, 2009, three days after the accident, claiming chest and back pain from a seat belt injury. He didn’t treat again until June 30, 2009, when he presented to a chiropractor complaining of severe lower back pain. Treshler then treated with chiropractic care through December 2009. In January 2010, Treshler began treating with an orthopedist and underwent an MRI in February 2010, which revealed a lumbar disc herniation at L4-5. He then continued treating with pain management through his orthopedist and received epidural injections for his lower back. Treshler claimed he still experiences residual pain and discomfort in his lower back, and requires a fusion at L4-5. He alleged he missed a few days of work following the accident, as well as sporadic days for treatment and appointments. Thus, Treshler sought recovery of $12,000 in damages for past medical costs; $125,000 in damages for his future medical costs, which included a fusion surgery; an unspecified amount of damages for past lost earnings; and roughly $200,000 in damages for his past and future pain and suffering. His wife, Qiong, sought recovery of damages for her loss of consortium. Defense counsel argued that Mr. Treshler was not seriously injured from the subject accident. Counsel contended that Mr. Treshler was involved in two prior accidents in 2004 and 2005, and that three MRIs prior to the subject accident all revealed a herniation at L4-5. As such, defense counsel argued that the herniation was a pre-existing injury that wasn’t causally related to the subject accident.