On Nov. 11, 2010, plaintiff Araceli Cobian, 45, a housekeeping supervisor, was driving on San Vicente Road, heading to work at a timeshare resort in Ramona, when a small truck operated by Jose Cardenas rounded a curve, causing a ladder to drop from it. As a result of the ladder bouncing on the road a few times in front of Cobian, she was forced to bring her vehicle to a stop in the roadway. Cobian’s vehicle was then rear-ended by a vehicle operated by Gonzalo Rodriguez. Cobian claimed to her neck and left shoulder. Cobian sued Gonzalo Rodriguez; Jose Cardenas; and believe owner of the Mr. Cardenas’ vehicle, Maria Cardenas. Cobian alleged the Rodriguez and Mr. Cardenas were negligent in the operation of their respective vehicles and that Ms. Cardenas was vicariously liable for Mr. Cardenas’ actions. Mr. and Ms. Cardenas ultimately agreed to settle by tendering their $50,000 policy limits prior to trial. Plaintiff’s counsel argued that Rodriguez had sufficient time to perceive, react, and safely slow down his vehicle and avoid rear-ending Cobian’s vehicle on the roadway, as he had about 300-feet from time from where he first saw Cobian’s vehicle to where he could have stopped. Counsel further argued that as Rodriguez was traveling at 45 mph, Rodriguez should have had about five to six seconds to react. Counsel contended that, instead, Rodriguez began to stop just 34-feet from Cobian’s vehicle and ultimately struck Cobian’s vehicle at an estimated 30 mph. The plaintiff’s accident reconstruction and biomechanics expert did a reconstruction of the collision and testified about reaction time. Defense counsel argued that the collision was Mr. Cardenas’ fault, as he failed to properly secure the ladder, dropped it on the road, and put Cobian and Rodriguez in the precarious situation on the back road highway. Counsel also argued that Cobian was tailgating Mr. Cardenas’ vehicle and that Cobian failed to put on her hazard lights or pull over onto the side of road. The defense’s accident reconstruction expert opined that Rodriguez was coming out of a blind curve in the road and that by the time Rodriguez was out of the curve, Cobian’s vehicle was so close that there was not enough time to perceive and react to her stopped vehicle., Cobian claimed that she suffered to her cervical spine and left shoulder. She was subsequently taken by ambulance to a hospital, where she was treated and released. In 2011, she underwent (non-contrast) MRIs of her left shoulder, which appeared normal, and a second MRI on her cervical spine, which showed a small bulge at the C5-6 level. Cobian was subsequently treated with conservative care, such as physical therapy, chiropractic care, and treatment from her primary care physician. However, in 2013, Cobian underwent repeat MRIs, which showed a superior labrum anterior and posterior (SLAP) tear of her left shoulder and a herniated cervical disc at the C5-6 level. As a result, Cobian against underwent extensive conservative care, including physical therapy, chiropractic care, acupuncture, and a steroid injection. She ultimately required disc replacement surgery at C5-6 in November 2013. In 2015, 1.5 years after the cervical surgery, Cobian underwent a biceps tendon repair surgery to address the SLAP tear. Cobian alleged that after the cervical surgery, she suffered complications, which resulted in ongoing pain in her neck. She also alleged that she suffered complications after the shoulder surgery, including neurapraxia of the musculocutaneous nerve, which she claimed was injured during the shoulder surgery. Cobian claimed that as a result of the nerve , she suffers radicular pain down her left arm and into her fingertips. She also claimed that she is in constant pain and that she is limited with her neck movement, as well as turning and lifting her head. Thus, she alleged that she missed two years of work due to her . Cobian claimed that prior to the collision, she spent time with her close-knit family, including going to the park, attending family gatherings, and going fishing with her family. However, she claimed she can no longer participate fully in any of those activities due to her . The plaintiff’s accident reconstruction expert opined that the force of the collision was consistent with the alleged by Cobian, and the plaintiff’s expert orthopedic surgeon, who specialized in shoulder , also opined that Cobian’s SLAP tear was caused by the subject collision. In addition, the plaintiff’s neurosurgery expert opined that MRIs showed that Cobian’s were consistent with trauma and that a CT scan showed a traumatic injury. He also opined that Cobian’s disc replacement surgery at C5-6 had too much movement and that Cobian may eventually require a cervical fusion. Thus, Cobian sought recovery of past and future medical costs, and past loss of earnings. She also sought recovery of damages for her past and future pain and suffering. Defense counsel contended that any injury to the C5-6 level was degenerative and that the condition may have been caused by a work-related injury due to repetitive motions, like folding bed sheets. Counsel also contended that there was nothing seen on the initial MRI taken shortly after the incident and that there were changes noted between the MRI taken shortly after the incident and the subsequent MRI taken more than a year later. Thus, defense counsel argued that degeneration, not trauma, accounted for those changes on the MRI. The defense’s orthopedic surgery expert opined that Cobian’s were only soft-tissue . The expert also opined that Cobian should have undergone physical therapy for a few months and then undergone home care, after which Cobian’s would have resolved. The defense’s radiology expert opined that the MRIs did not show any traumatic injury, but that they showed degeneration of the spine unrelated to the incident.