On April 9, 2011, plaintiff Luis Arroyo, 51, a custodian, was driving on eastbound State Route 91, just east of the Interstate-710 interchange, when he saw that the traffic ahead of him had stopped. Arroyo claimed that as he came to a stop behind two non-party vehicles, he was struck from behind twice. The three vehicles behind him, in order, were operated by Maria De Lourdes Vargas, Sherry Cowan and Christos Poptsis. Arroyo claimed he injured his back in the accident. Arroyo sued Cowan, the owner of Cowan’s vehicle, Raquel Conde; Vargas; Christos Poptsis; and the owner of Christos Poptsis’ vehicle, George Poptsis. Arroyo alleged that Cowan, Vargas and Christos Poptsis were negligent in the operation of their respective vehicles. He also alleged that Conde was vicariously liable for Cowan’s actions and that George Poptsis was vicariously liable for Christos Poptsis’ actions. Arroyo claimed that while he was stopped behind the two non-party vehicles, he felt two rear-end impacts to his vehicle. However, plaintiff’s counsel noted that there was a dispute as to who hit whom first. Vargas’ counsel contended that that Arroyo originally testified at deposition that he only felt one rear-end impact, not two. Counsel also contended that, most significantly, Arroyo did not claim that Vargas rear-ended him, but, rather, stated that he did not know who exactly hit him. Counsel for the defendant drivers all argued that Arroyo struck the vehicle in front of him first and that Arroyo was at least partially responsible for his own . Counsel also presented the police report, which indicated that Arroyo struck the vehicle in front of him before he was rear-ended and that Arroyo was the primary collision factor., Arroyo was not treated at the scene or taken to a hospital after the collision. However, he claimed he suffered back pain during the incident and presented to an urgent care facility the next day. Arroyo was subsequently told to follow up with his primary care physician and he was excused from work. He then was then prescribed physical therapy after presenting to his primary care physician. On June 6, 2011, Arroyo underwent an MRI, which showed mild disc disease between L5-S1 and L1-2. In late June 2011, after six weeks of physical therapy, Arroyo asked to be released back to work. His physical therapist agreed to release him, but instructed him to be careful. Arroyo’s employer required that Arroyo be checked out by work doctors and have a fitness-for-duty evaluation before returning to work. During the fitness-for-duty examination on July 13, 2011, Arroyo was instructed to lift 75 pounds, but in doing so, he severely injured his back. As a result, a subsequent MRI was performed on Aug. 8, 2011. The MRI revealed a 5- to 6-millimeter protrusion at L2-3, a 3-millimeter disc bulge at L3-4, a 4-millimeter protrusion at L4-5, and a 6-millimeter protrusion at L5-S1. Arroyo is now disabled and has been out of work since the fitness-for-duty examination. He claimed that he is in permanent pain, unable to sit or stand for long periods of time, and unable to engage in any of his previous activities. He also claimed that it was recommended that he eventually undergo epidural injections and lumbar surgery. Arroyo filed a workers’ compensation claim against his employer, which was resolved separately after a qualified medical exam on April 24, 2014 found him to be permanently disabled. No claim of reimbursement was asserted in the civil suit by the workers’ compensation carrier. However, Arroyo claimed that the defendant drivers were liable for all damages that occurred during the July 13, 2011 appointment, as he claimed the disc protrusions and bulging disc occurred during the course of reasonable and necessary medical treatment. Defense counsel argued that any injury that occurred during Arroyo’s fitness-for-duty examination on July 13, 2011 was not caused during in the course of treatment.