On Dec. 24, 2015, plaintiff Benigno Solis, 48, a cook, was driving on State Route 138, near its intersection at Mountain Road, in the community of Pinon Hills. His daughter, plaintiff Scarlet Solis, 17, a student, was a passenger. While Benigno Solis was proceeding through the intersection, his minivan struck the right side of a vehicle that was being driven by Reginald Williams, who was executing a left turn from the opposite side of State Route 138. Benigno Solis claimed that he suffered of his back, his neck and his nose. Scarlet Solis claimed that she suffered of her back and neck. Benigno Solis and Scarlet Solis sued Williams. The lawsuit alleged that Williams was negligent in the operation of his vehicle. Williams died after the lawsuit had been filed. His estate was substituted as a defendant. During the trial, defense counsel conceded liability. The trial proceeded to damages., After three days had passed, Benigno Solis visited a hospital. He underwent a CT scan of his nose. Solis claimed that the test revealed fractures of his nose and septum, and he further claimed that the were products of the accident. He also claimed that he suffered  of soft tissue of his back and neck. After some 12 months had passed, Solis underwent surgical reconstruction of his nose. He also underwent about 20 sessions of chiropractic treatment. He claimed that his resolved. Solis sought recovery of $101,818.36 for past medical expenses, and he also sought recovery of damages for past pain and suffering. After 11 days had passed, Scarlet Solis sought medical treatment. She ultimately claimed that she suffered  of soft tissue of her back and neck. She underwent about 20 sessions of chiropractic treatment, and she claimed that her resolved. Solis sought recovery of $3,420 for past medical expenses, and she also sought recovery of damages for past pain and suffering. Defense counsel disputed the nature and extent of the plaintiffs’ , including whether Benigno Solis suffered a fracture of the nose. Defense counsel also disputed the reasonableness and necessity of the plaintiffs’ treatment.