On July 17, 2016, claimant Gail Lobosco, 64, a financial analyst, was driving east on Interstate 10, in Pomona, when her sport utility vehicle was broadsided by another sport utility vehicle, which was operated by Manuel Espinoza. Lobosco’s vehicle then spun across four lanes of traffic and collided with the metal center median. Lobosco’s vehicle was deemed a total loss, and Lobosco claimed she sustained to her head, neck and back. Lobosco filed a claim against Espinoza’s insurer, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. Lobosco alleged that Espinoza was negligent in the operation of his vehicle and that Espinoza’s insurer, State Farm, was liable for any damages sustained as a result of Espinoza’s actions. The matter proceeded to a binding arbitration. Lobosco claimed that her vehicle sustained three violent impacts, including the initial broadside impact from Espinoza’s vehicle, an impact when the front of her vehicle collided with the center median, and an impact when the back of her vehicle also collided with the center median. State Farm’s counsel did not dispute liability., Lobosco claimed she sustained a concussion (a mild traumatic brain injury), a cervical strain and a thoracic strain. She was taken to a hospital where she underwent emergency hospital care. She then treated with physical therapy, chiropractic care, acupuncture, psychotherapy, and pain management. Lobosco also treated with an orthopedist and a neurologist. Lobosco claimed that as a result of the accident, she suffers from headaches, back pain, neck pain, post-traumatic brain syndrome (post-concussion syndrome), tinnitus, blurred vision, pain in her left shoulder and hand, and an aversion to light and noise. She also claimed she suffers from depression and anhedonia, which is the inability to feel pleasure. Lobosco’s treating psychoanalyst expert made several diagnoses and recommended additional treatment, such as future psychological consults. Lobosco sought recovery of past and future medical costs, and damages for her past and future pain and suffering. State Farm’s counsel disputed the necessity of both Lobosco’s treatment and Lobosco’s alleged future medical needs, especially the psychological consults. The respondent’s psychology expert disputed the necessity of Lobosco’s treatment with her psychoanalyst and the validity of the psychoanalyst’s diagnosis.