On Dec. 14, 2010, plaintiff Martha Nava, a 53-year-old woman on disability, was a front seat passenger in a vehicle operated by her sister, Maria Garcia, and traveling eastbound on West 16th Street in San Bernardino. At approximately 1 p.m., while crossing the intersection with North Massachusetts Avenue, Garcia’s vehicle was broadsided on the passenger side by a vehicle operated by Nancy Canela, who was driving north on North Massachusetts Avenue. Nava claimed to her neck, back, and right forearm. Nava sued Canela; Ms. Garcia; and the registered owner of Ms. Garcia’s vehicle, Oscar Garcia, Ms. Garcia’s husband. Nava alleged that Canela and Ms. Garcia were negligent in the operation of their respective vehicles, and that Mr. Garcia was vicariously liable for his wife’s actions. Mr. Garcia was ultimately dismissed from the case prior to trial. The accident occurred at a four-way-stop intersection, and Canela and Ms. Garcia both claimed they approached the intersection first and had established the clear right of way. There were no other eyewitnesses other than the passengers of the vehicles, and the police report was inconclusive., Nava was taken by ambulance to an emergency room, where she claimed pain in her right forearm. She subsequently underwent an X-ray, which revealed a fracture, and had her right forearm placed in a removable cast for six weeks. She also claimed soft-tissue strains and sprains of her neck and lower back, for which she treated with ongoing physical therapy and chiropractic care, off-and-on. Nava claimed she still experiences residual lower back pain that will require physical therapy and pain injections for the remainder of her life. The plaintiff’s expert orthopedic surgeon opined that Nava’s forearm fracture was traumatically induced in the subject accident. The expert also opined that 90 percent of Nava’s future lower back treatment would be directly related to the accident, with the other 10 percent related to Nava’s pre-existing condition, as Nava admitted that she had pursued treatment for neck and back pain prior to the subject accident. Nava claimed that having already been on disability for bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome, her new did not drastically change her already sedentary lifestyle. Thus, Nava sought recovery of roughly $11,000 in past medical costs and $115,000 in future medical costs. She also sought recovery of $25,000 in damages for her past pain and suffering, and $25,000 in damages for her future pain and suffering. Canela’s counsel contended that Nava’s alleged forearm fracture was an old injury that pre-existed the accident, as opined by the radiologist that reviewed Nava’s X-ray at the hospital. Counsel also contended that, by Nava’s own admission, the neck and back pre-existed the subject accident. Thus, Canela’s counsel argued that all past and projected future lower back care was a result of Nava’s pre-existing condition and were unrelated to the accident.