On Sept. 27, 2017, plaintiff Andrea Cornea, 43, an office manager at a dental office, was driving north on Sierra Highway, in Santa Clarita. As she continued straight on Sierra Highway and entered the T-intersection with Davenport Road, the front of her vehicle collided with the side of a vehicle operated by Leslie Briseno, who entered the intersection from westbound Davenport Road. Cornea claimed to her back. Cornea sued Briseno and the owner of Briseno’s vehicle, Robert Stirzel. Cornea alleged that Briseno was negligent in the operation of her vehicle and that Stirzel was vicariously liable for Cornea’s actions. Stirzel was dismissed from the case prior to trial. Cornea claimed that Briseno was stopped at a stop sign on Davenport Road before pulling into to intersection, but that Briseno was inattentive to oncoming traffic and pulled in front of her vehicle, causing the crash. Briseno accepted liability at the beginning of trial., Emergency personnel arrived at the scene, but Cornea declined going to a hospital because she was uninsured and worried about the medical costs. However, a friend later took Cornea to a general practitioner in the building where they work, and the general practitioner told Cornea to go to an emergency room because he was concerned about her abdominal . Cornea was determined to have sustained multiple contusions to her abdomen, chest, right wrist, neck and back, resulting in pain to those areas. Cornea started treating with an expert chiropractor and most of her initial resolved during that time. However, she claimed that after a few months of treatment, her back pain remained. The chiropractor also noted that Cornea reported pain from her lower back shooting into her leg, so he referred her to a podiatrist because he thought Cornea possibly had a foot injury. The podiatrist concluded that there was nothing wrong with Cornea’s foot, but told her to start physical therapy. Cornea then began treating with a physical therapy expert and underwent a few months of treatment. She eventually saw a spine specialist, who concluded that Cornea had a lumbar injury and referred her to and expert orthopedic surgeon. The plaintiff’s expert orthopedic surgeon opined that Cornea had a permanent lumbar injury at the L3-4 level. The expert opined that the L3-4 disc was bad and that not much was remaining prior to the subject accident, so it could not withstand the load of the impact. The expert further opined that as a result of the crash, Cornea was left with pain from either the disc itself or the facet joints on the vertebrae. Based on the expert orthopedic surgeon’s opinion, plaintiff’s counsel argued that Cornea was an eggshell plaintiff, in that Cornea was more susceptible to injury because of her spinal condition, and that the subject accident made her condition worse. Cornea claimed that she cannot sit for longer than 15 minutes at a time and that as a result, she cannot drive for long periods of time. She also claimed that she can no longer participate in kickboxing, hiking and jogging, all of which she loved and used to do prior to the subject accident. Cornea further claimed that she has to sit on a tennis ball at her desk at work to alleviate pain in her buttocks area. In addition, plaintiff’s counsel contended that Cornea’s colleague at work has to push Cornea’s feet into her chest while Cornea lays down, or has to pull Cornea’s legs while Cornea lays down, in order to alleviate the pain in Cornea’s lumbar spine while at work. Cornea’s colleague also testified about that routine. The plaintiff’s expert orthopedic surgeon opined that Cornea’s injury was permanent and that although she was not a surgical candidate, Cornea would need future pain management, possibly for the rest of her life. Cornea claimed that she had a pain management consultation and learned about her future treatment, which would include numerous epidural injections. However, Cornea ultimately decided against pursuing the suggested pain management treatment, as she felt it would not permanently solve her problem. Cornea waived her past and future medical costs, and only sought recovery of damages for her past and future pain and suffering. Plaintiff’s counsel asked the jury to award Cornea $1.2 million in total damages. Defense counsel argued that Cornea’s back pain was pre-existing, and not caused or aggravated by the accident. Counsel noted that Cornea had complained of back pain before the subject accident, and argued that any back complaints that Cornea had after the accident was related to Cornea’s previous back condition. Defense counsel contended that Cornea’s own doctor wanted to perform injections as a diagnostic tool to determine the extent of the injury, but that Cornea refused the treatment. Thus, counsel argued that Cornea did not mitigate her damages by following her own doctor’s suggestions. Defense counsel also argued that the effects the alleged pain had on Cornea’s life were exaggerated, as Cornea did not suffer a disc protrusion. Counsel further questioned whether Cornea had ongoing pain, noting that there were gaps in treatment between each provider. Defense counsel argued that Cornea should be awarded $0 because she failed to mitigate her damages. However, counsel argued that if the jury found that Cornea should be awarded past damages, it should only award between $10,000 and $20,000. In response, Cornea claimed that while she did have prior lower back pain six months before the subject accident, it was nothing significant, as her pain was resolved after only two chiropractic visits. Plaintiff’s counsel also contended that the delays in treatment were due to Cornea being told by each provider that there was nothing else that could be done for her, which Cornea believed until she saw the next provider, and that the decision to not pursue pain management was Cornea’s to make. Plaintiff’s counsel noted that defense’s expert orthopedic surgeon was a colleague and friend of the plaintiff’s expert orthopedic surgeon and that the defense’s expert hired the plaintiff’s expert to work at the same practice. Counsel also noted that the defense’s expert testified that he thought the plaintiff’s expert was an excellent surgeon and that he only disagreed with the plaintiff’s expert’s opinion about how much Cornea’s daily life would be affected by her pain. In addition, counsel noted that the plaintiff’s expert orthopedic surgeon testified that there does not need to be a disc protrusion for Cornea to have pain.