In 2009, plaintiff Marilyn Hinman, a homemaker in her 50s, was driving a red 2007 Dodge Charger north on Franciscan Street in Irvine when she entered the intersection at Walnut Avenue on a green light and was struck by a black 2004 Toyota Solara. The Toyota was operated by Kevin Chang, who entered the intersection from westbound Walnut Avenue. Hinman claimed head and brain from the crash. Hinman sued Chang, alleging that the defendant was negligent in the operation of his vehicle. Specifically, she claimed she had a green traffic light as she entered the intersection, and that Chang caused the crash by disregarding a red light on Walnut Avenue. Chang admitted that he ran a red light and collided with Hinman’s vehicle., Hinman declined treatment at the scene, but was treated at a hospital approximately two hours after the accident. She claimed she sustained a traumatic brain injury, including focal point lesions in the brain on both the front right and left side of her head. She alleged that these focal point lesions matched up with the impact of the steering wheel and contact to the driver’s side window, and that the resulted in brain damage. However, Hinman was not evaluated by a neurologist and did not receive a traumatic brain injury diagnosis for more than 750 days. In addition, Hinman claimed shoulder , neck and back , and posterior vitreous detachment to the right eye. The plaintiff’s neuroradiology expert testified that upon reading Hinman’s brain scans, he opined that the scans matched up to traumatic brain injury. The plaintiff’s neuropsychology expert also opined that testing showed that Hinman had suffered a traumatic brain injury. In addition, the plaintiff’s orthopedic surgery expert surmised that Hinman may need future injections in the shoulder and a possible surgery down the road for her shoulders and neck. Hinman claimed that her brain damage became progressively worse from the date of the accident to the date of the trial. She alleged that as a result, her personality has changed, and she can no longer organize or remember details. She also alleged that she has not been intimate with her husband since the accident and her condition affects her ability to handle day-to-day life. Thus, Hinman claimed that she suffers depression. Hinman further claimed that she needs yearly, ongoing care for the traumatic brain injury because of her situation becoming so significantly changed since the accident, and that she will potentially need surgery for her neck and shoulders. Plaintiff’s counsel did not ask the jury to award any medical expenses or other economic damages. Thus, counsel asked the jury to only award Hinman for her past and future pain and suffering. Defense counsel disputed the cause and severity of Hinman’s alleged . The defense’s neuropsychology expert testified that based on the raw data, testing showed Hinman to be normal. The defense’s expert neurologist also testified that Hinman’s complaints were iatrogenic or psychological, and that by being told she was brain damaged, Hinman believes that she is. According to defense counsel, plaintiff’s counsel indicated that only a neuroradiologist should be testifying as to Hinman’s head, neck and brain. However, the defense’s expert radiologist opined that the focal points present on Hinman’s MRI scans were from small vessel disease, and were pre-existing, degenerative and not due to the trauma of the accident.