On Jan. 20, 2009, at approximately 11:52 a.m., plaintiff Ardeshir Pezeshki, 46, a business consultant, was driving on Almaden Expressway in San Jose, crossing the intersection with Redmont Avenue, when he was broadsided by a vehicle operated Robert Oneill, who was traveling on Redmont Avenue. Pezeshki claimed an injury to his neck. Pezeshki sued Oneill. He alleged the defendant was negligent in the operation of his vehicle, causing the accident. Specifically, Pezeshki claimed Oneill ran a red light and broadsided the driver side of his vehicle. Oneill admitted liability for the accident, and the matter proceeded to a trial on damages., On the day of the accident, Pezeshki went to a Kaiser Permanente facility with complaints of neck pain. He was subsequently prescribed pain medication and followed up with a chiropractor. Pezeshki then treated with five months of chiropractic care, as well as consulted with a neurosurgeon and pain management specialist. In addition, he underwent an MRI, which revealed a cervical disc protrusion at the C6-7 level. As a result, Pezeshki continued treating with pain management for his disc protrusion and radiculopathy in his left arm. Pezeshki claimed he still experiences pain and discomfort in his neck, with radicular numbness in his left arm. He alleged that as a result, he is still physically limited and can’t play sports like he used to. He also alleged that he was laid off because he couldn’t perform his job and was subsequently out of work for several months. Pezeshki claimed that he was recommended epidural injections for his neck, but that he has yet to receive them. Thus, Pezeshki sought recovery of $25,965 in damages for his past medical costs, $62,000 in damages for his future medical costs, $55,000 in damages for his past lost earnings, and $300,000 in damages for his pain and suffering. Defense counsel argued that Pezeshki fully recovered from the sustained in the accident and that the plaintiff’s chiropractic care, along with the initial pain management and neurosurgeon consultations, was sufficient treatment. Counsel also argued that Pezeshki had a gap in treatment after his initial care, and that any further treatment, ongoing complaints, or need for epidural injections is unrelated to the subject accident.