On June 8, 2012, plaintiff David Leppek, 50, a garage door technician, was driving a heavy duty Ford F550 work truck on westbound Slater Avenue, in Huntington Beach. Leppek was accompanied by his son, 22-year-old Anthony, who was sitting in the front passenger seat. As Leppek entered the intersection with Goldenwest Street, his vehicle was struck on the front driver side by a 2005 Mustang operated by Hiram Phan, who was attempting a left turn from eastbound Slater Avenue onto northbound Goldenwest Street. Since Leppek’s work truck weighed four times the weight of the Mustang, it sustained much less damage than the nearly-decimated Mustang. As a result, the truck’s airbags did not deploy. During the police investigation, no were reported with the exception of Phan reporting a bloody nose and a laceration to his lip. Leppek and his son were then picked up by Leppek’s wife and driven home from the scene. However, Leppek later complained of a lower back injury as a result of the crash. Leppek sued the driver of Mustang, Hiram Phan, and the registered owner of the vehicle, Hoan Phan. Leppek alleged that Hiram Phan was negligent in the operation of his vehicle and that his father, Hoan Phan, was vicariously liable as the owner of the vehicle. Leppek had also sued Kim Giwon, who appeared as a registered owner of the vehicle. However, it was determined that Giwon had sold the Ford Mustang to Hoan Phan prior to the collision. As a result, plaintiff’s counsel discontinued its claim against Giwon. In addition, the claim against Hoan Phan was ultimately discontinued, and the matter proceeded to a trial against Hiram Phan only. Leppek claimed that Slater Avenue’s traffic signals were green at the time of the collision. Thus, he contended that he possessed the right of way and that Hiram Phan, who made a sudden and abrupt left turn directly into the path of his truck, caused the crash. While Hiram Phan did not initially admit liability, he ultimately agreed that he was negligent in the operation of his motor vehicle at the time of the subject incident. Thus, the parties stipulated that Hiram Phan was at fault for the collision., Leppek claimed he sustained a herniated lumbar disc, resulting in a small protrusion of the L4-5 disc with associated lower back pain, nerve impingement, and radiculopathy down his right leg. After the collision, Leppek reported a bloody nose and a laceration to his lip to the investigating police officer. Leppek and his son were then picked up by Leppek’s wife and driven home from the scene. Five days later, on June 13, 2012, Leppek presented to a local chiropractor and began treatment for alleged lower back pain. After nearly four months of 40 chiropractic sessions, he received an epidural injection to his lower back, which improved his condition. Leppek, therefore, discontinued treatment for nearly three months, but returned to the chiropractor in February 2013 (8 months post-incident) with a relapse of his lower back pain. Over the next two years, Leppek continued treating with a pain management doctor and neurosurgeon, receiving three more lumbar epidural injections and, ultimately, a microdiscectomy at L4-5 in March 2015, wherein the small disc protrusion at L4-5 was surgically removed. Leppek claimed that although the forces involved in the collision would not ordinarily cause the type of injury he sustained, he had a pre-existing injury which made him more susceptible to a lower back injury. In 1989, Leppek fell off a roof, and in 1991, he had a laminectomy at the L4-5 level. Leppek claimed that he recovered well and that within a year, or thereabouts, he had recovered to his pre-surgery activities. Over the course of the next 20 years, Leppek was involved in two other car crashes and a trip-and-fall incident, each of which caused some aggravation of his lower back pain. However, he claimed that all prior symptoms resolved with minimal chiropractic treatment. The plaintiff’s expert neurosurgeon opined that the collision caused Leppek’s lower back injury. He also opined that Leppek’s pre-existing injury and laminectomy at L4-5 made him unusually susceptible to back . The plaintiff’s technical experts, a biomechanist and an accident reconstructionist, each determined that the force of the impact would have been sufficient to cause a serious injury, considering Leppek’s pre-existing susceptibility to injury. Thus, Leppek sought recovery of past and future medical expenses, and recovery of damages for his past and future pain and suffering. Defense counsel argued that Leppek could not have been injured to the extent claimed, that Leppek’s medical treatment was excessive, and that Leppek’s medical bills were unreasonable. Counsel contended that the impact force felt by Leppek’s truck was not ordinarily sufficient to cause and that such force would have been four times less than the impact force felt by the Mustang, whose occupant, Hiram Phan, was practically uninjured. Defense counsel also contended that the truck’s airbag did not deploy, as it weighed four times greater than the Mustang and felt a change in speed below the threshold for an airbag’s deployment. Counsel further contended that because Leppek did not complain of a serious injury at the scene and delayed his treatment, Leppek could not have possibly suffered a herniated disc during the collision, as such an injury would have been immediately and unbearably painful. In addition, defense counsel argued that Leppek’s surgery was unnecessary and that the medical bills were too high. The defense’s technical expert, an accident reconstruction and biomechanical expert, testified that the crash was low-impact and could not have caused Leppek’s . The defense’s expert radiologist opined that Leppek’s post-collision MRI did not reveal any injury that was attributable to the crash. The defense’s expert orthopedic surgeon opined that Leppek was claiming greater than those sustained and that the surgery was unnecessary. He further suggested that Leppek’s were pre-existing and were caused by natural, degenerative factors.