On Jan. 5, 2018, plaintiff Kimberlee Watkins, 40, an intellectual property docket clerk, was driving home on Interstate 405, in Los Angeles, when her vehicle was rear-ended by a Los Angeles County Transportation Authority bus operated by Henrik Leeper. Watkins claimed to her head, hips, legs and back. Watkins sued Leeper and Leeper’s employer, the Los Angeles County Transportation Authority. Watkins alleged that Leeper was negligent in the operation of the bus and that the transportation authority was vicariously liable for Leeper’s actions. Watkins’ counsel contended that Leeper failed to slow the bus for freeway traffic and that the bus was traveling at approximately 45 mph when it rear-ended Watkins’ vehicle. The defendants admitted liability during discovery., Watkins claimed she sustained a moderate traumatic brain injury. She also claimed she sustained soft tissue to her hips and back, as well as bilateral thigh lipomas. Watkins was taken to a hospital, where head scans revealed a brain bleed. Watkins claimed she suffered ongoing cognitive deficits and problems due to the traumatic brain injury. She alleged that as a result, she requires a lifetime of neurological and psychological care, and possible medication. She also alleged that due to her brain injury, she has an increased risk of early onset dementia and possible seizures, which would require in-home or institutional care later in life. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that Watkins worked very hard to recuperate and that Watkins was eventually able to return to work full time in the legal profession, earning exemplary remarks in her post-accident job performance reviews. However, Watkins claimed that she still struggles with ongoing residual effects of her head injury, such as fatigue and concentration. Plaintiff’s counsel noted that lay witnesses testified as to the alleged ongoing problems and that the witnesses detailed the changes they continue to observe in Watkins. Watkins sought recovery for her past and future medical costs, and past and future pain and suffering. Defense counsel disputed the nature and extent of Watkins’ based on record reviews and examinations of Watkins by the defense’s experts in radiology, neurology, neuropsychology, neuropsychiatry and orthopedic surgery.