On Oct. 18, 2012, plaintiff Cassidy Marshall, 26, a student, was a passenger in a vehicle operated by Amanda Boyett, who entered Hope Street, in downtown Los Angeles, from a private parking lot opposite a California Department of Motor Vehicles office. Boyett was intending to drive across all three lanes of Hope Street, a one-way street, to enter Exposition Boulevard, which forked to the left of Hope Street. At the same time, Melanie Rosario, an investigator for the DMV, turned left from the parking lot of a DMV office into the middle of the three lanes. As a result, the vehicles collided in the middle lane, with the front right of Rosario’s vehicle impacting with the front left of Boyett’s vehicle. Both drivers testified that they were traveling at approximately 10 mph or less at the time of the collision and were able to drive their respective cars into the DMV parking lot to await police. However, Marshall claimed to her head, neck and shoulder. Marshall sued Boyett; Rosario; and Rosario’s employer, the State of California, Department of General Services. Marshall alleged that Boyett and Rosario were negligent in the operation of their respective vehicles and that the state was vicariously liable for Rosario’s actions. Boyett ultimately settled with Marshall prior to trial, and the matter continued against Rosario and the state. The plaintiffs’ accident reconstruction expert testified that liability for the accident should be split 50/50 between Boyett and Rosario. Rosario’s counsel argued that Rosario was not negligent in the accident., Marshall claimed that she suffered from neck and shoulder pain, and from migraine headaches beginning the day after the accident. She subsequently obtained medical treatment, including medication and therapy from a chiropractor, orthopedic doctor, pain management doctor, neurologist, and physical therapist. The plaintiff’s expert orthopedic surgeon and treating physician testified that MRIs revealed a 2-millimeter cervical disc bulge at the C6-7 level and bursitis of the left shoulder. He also testified that such findings were consistent with traumatic and Marshall’s complaints of pain following the accident. Marshall claimed that she is in persistent pain and that her pain affects her ability to do school work and household chores. She claimed that as a result, she requires additional treatment. Thus, Marshall sought recovery of approximately $25,000 in past medical expenses and approximately $25,000 in future medical expenses. She also sought recovery of damages for her past and future pain and suffering. Defense counsel disputed Marshall’s alleged and noted that no medical care was requested by, or provided to, any party at the scene of the accident. Thus, counsel argued that Marshall’s were either fabricated or exaggerated. The defense’s orthopedic expert testified that there was no objective evidence of a traumatic injury and that Marshall’s treatment was excessive.