On Oct. 16, 2010, plaintiff Ryan Toomey, a self-employed 27 year old, attended a Halloween-themed event at a facility that contained a haunted maze. As Toomey reached the final room of the primary haunted maze, she was confronted by a jail-like scene with actors portraying prisoners trying to attack the patrons through the large openings in the jail-like construction. The actors used large sticks and other hard objects to bang against the bars and scare patrons as they walked through the room. However, Toomey claimed that as she neared the end of the room, one of the actors accidentally struck her across the back of the neck, causing her to stumble and suffer multiple to her neck. Toomey sued the company that owned the facility where event was held, and the company that allegedly set up the scenery and props for the event. Toomey brought a single cause of action against the two companies for negligence based on a vicarious liability theory. Toomey contended that an actor attempted to swing a wooden stick against the bars next to her in order to scare her, but, instead, missed the bars and accidentally struck her across the back of the neck with such force that the stick broke in two. She claimed that while the actor that struck her came forward and apologized, he did not exit the dark maze with her group and did not provide his name. Thus, Toomey claimed she had no way to identify the specific actor that struck her with the stick, which witnesses from her group described as approximately two inches thick. She further claimed that when she was seen at the event’s medical tent, she and her party reported the incident to someone claiming to be the manager, but that no incident report was ever created. As a result, Toomey claimed she had no means to identify the specific employee that struck her or the entity that was responsible for employing that particular employee. The two companies disputed which one was responsible for hiring, controlling and paying the actors that were employed within the maze to scare patrons. They also disputed whether the incident occurred as alleged, or at all. In addition, defense counsel contended that the dimensions and appearance of the object that allegedly struck Toomey was not consistently described by the witnesses and was not as thick as claimed., Toomey claimed that immediately after being struck, she experienced intense pain and blood formed at the base of her neck. As a result, she went to an emergency room the following morning. Toomey claimed she suffered a laceration to the back of her neck, as well as traumatic blunt force trauma to her vertebrae, facet joints, and surrounding musculature. For the first two years after the incident, she underwent weekly physical therapy, which she claimed provided only temporary relief, while her physicians conducted MRIs and EMGs that provided no clear diagnostic answers to the cause of her ongoing pain. Toomey claimed that her neck bothered her for more than three years after the incident and that her friends described her state during the first two years as essentially “bedridden,” as she was unable to participate in most of the activities that she had enjoyed before the incident. In August 2012, Toomey was seen by a neurosurgeon who diagnosed her with discogenic and facetogenic cervical pain, and a cervical ligamentous injury due to the blunt force trauma from the incident. The diagnosis was confirmed when Toomey underwent cervical facet medial branch nerve blocks, bilaterally, at C3-4 and C4-5 in January 2013, which she claimed provided immediate relief for the first time since the incident occurred. Toomey later underwent repeat cervical facet medial branch nerve blocks, bilaterally, at C3-4 and C4-5, and then radiofrequency thermocoagulation of the cervical facet medial branch nerve, bilaterally, at C3-4 and C4-5, hoping for more relief. Toomey claimed the relief from the RFTC ablation lasted more than six months. However, she contended that she may require additional RFTC procedures in the future, if the relief subsided. Thus, Toomey sought recovery of approximately $60,000 in paid past medical costs and approximately $400,000 in future medical costs. She also sought recovery of damages for her pain and suffering. Defense counsel disputed whether Toomey’s subsequent medical treatment was reasonable, necessary or appropriate. Counsel contended that the lack of findings on the MRIs and EMG indicated that Toomey had only suffered a minor soft-tissue injury that should have resolved within a few months after the subject incident. Defense counsel further contended that the medial branch nerve blocks and RFTC ablation were unnecessary. In response, plaintiff’s counsel presented a report from an expert neurosurgeon in which the expert opined that the relief provided by the injections and RFTC ablation confirmed the diagnosis of a facet injury and showed that Toomey’s injury was much more than soft-tissue in nature.