On Oct. 6, 2014, plaintiff Ginny Mark, 58, a para-educator, underwent an X-ray of her jaw during a routine dental visit at Dr. William Low’s office, a dentist in Stockton. During the radiographic study, the wall-mounted X-ray machine dislodged from the wall and landed on top of Mark’s head, who had been reclined in the dentist’s chair. Mark claimed head and neck . Mark sued Low, alleging that Low was negligent for allowing a dangerous condition to exist on his property. Low stipulated to negligence, and the matter was tried on the issues of causation and damages., Following the accident, Mark was driven by the dentist’s staff to an urgent care facility, where she was examined by her primary care physician and noted to have head pain from head trauma. Mark was then seen the next day at a hospital with complaints of severe headaches. A CT scan of her head was negative, and she was subsequently released. Mark was then referred to a neurologist, and began a course of chiropractic care, including massage and spinal manipulation, on Oct. 17, 2014. She then continued treating through Nov. 15, 2014. That same month, an MRI was taken of her cervical spine, which allegedly showed cervical facet arthropathy at the C4-5, C5-6, and C6-7 levels. Thereafter, Mark treated with physical therapy from December 2014 to March 2015. She also continued to consult with her primary care physician, neurologists, and a pain-management specialist throughout 2015 and in April 2015, she underwent an EMG of her cervical spine, which was negative. In July 2015, Mark received a steroid injection to her cervical spine, and from July 2015 to October 2015, she treated with a course of acupuncture. In 2016, Mark continued to see neurologists and a pain-management physician with complaints of ongoing headaches and neck pain. As a result, she took multiple pain medications for her headaches and neck discomfort. On May 18, 2016, Mark treated with a radiofrequency ablation to the left sides of C3-4, C4-5, and C5-6, and then another ablation to the right side of those discs on May 25, 2016. The ablations allegedly improved Mark’s condition significantly with projected interval therapies planned annually. The plaintiff’s mechanical engineering expert determined that the maximum force involved when the X-ray machine landed on the top of Mark’s head was 800 to 1,600 pounds. The plaintiff’s pain-management specialist and family medicine expert causally related Mark’s and treatment to the accident. They testified that Mark suffered damage to her facet joints that resulted in chronic headaches and that Mark would require radiofrequency ablations in the future. Mark testified about her condition from the date of the accident to her second ablation. She claimed that she had suffered chronic headaches and constant neck pain that made it difficult to work. She alleged that when she was not working, she remained homebound and lay on her sofa. Mark’s daughter testified about Mark’s alleged constant discomfort and sedentary lifestyle. Thus, Mark sought recovery of $23,138.93 in past medical costs, $271,415.10 in future medical costs, and $2,265.12 in lost wages, having missed 24 days of work immediately following the accident. She also sought recovery of $200,000 in past pain and suffering. (Mark did not seek damages during the time between her second ablation and trial, or for future pain and suffering, since her condition had improved with radiofrequency ablation.) Defense counsel disputed the evidence that Mark’s pain was chronic and noted that multiple health-care providers who had seen Mark multiple times post-accident did not record any subjective complaints of neck pain. Counsel also noted that Mark did not miss any work after November 2014. Low’s expert in orthopedic surgery disputed that she required radiofrequency ablations at three disc levels, opining that only one disc level was needed on the left side only. The defense’s neurology expert, who examined Mark, admitted that Mark’s headaches resulted from the trauma, but denied Mark’s alleged neck pain was causally related to the incident. Both of the defense’s experts opined that the 17 days between the incident and Mark’s first complaint of neck pain was too distant to legally connect the incident with her neck-pain complaints. They also opined that the development of Mark’s neck pain was the result of age-related, disc-space narrowing.