On Sunday, Oct. 7, 2012, plaintiff Cristina Carrillo, 43, a monogrammer for In Fab, a family-owned fabric monogramming company, worked overtime on a project and was driving home to her residence in Chatsworth. As she was in the far right lane of eastbound Ronald Reagan Freeway, also known as State Route 118, her vehicle was struck by an out-of-control vehicle operated by Arthur Jauregui. Prior to the collision, Jauregui’s vehicle spun out of control and crossed the lanes to first strike Carrillo’s vehicle. The force then caused Carrillo’s vehicle to spin and collide with Jauregui’s vehicle again. Both vehicles then went to the right side of the freeway. Carrillo claimed to her neck. Carrillo sued Jauregui and the owner of Jauregui’s vehicle, Tennie Del Rosario. Carrillo alleged that Jauregui was negligent in the operation of the his vehicle and that Del Rosario was vicariously liable for Jauregui’s actions. Jauregui and Del Rosario conceded liability, and the jury only heard that Jauregui had lost control of the vehicle., Carrillo claimed she sustained a herniated cervical disc at the C5-6 level, which caused pressure on the spinal cord and resulted in myelopathy, a neurologic deficit related to the spinal cord. Carrillo claimed that she initially thought that she was fine after the accident and denied medical help at the scene. However, she alleged that she did not feel well while having the dinner that she had planned with her husband and daughter. A few days later she presented to a chiropractor and then presented to an orthopedic surgeon. Carrillo ultimately saw three different neurosurgeons, all of who recommended surgery. Carrillo claimed that she was suffering from continued, daily pain, as the cervical disc was hitting the center of her spinal cord. Although one neurosurgeon said that Carrillo could treat with epidural injections for relief, the surgeon admitted that the injections would not help long-term. As a result, Carrillo decided to choose the permanent, long-term option of surgery and she ultimately underwent a C5-6 disc replacement on Sept. 10, 2013. Carrillo alleged that the surgery was successful and that she is doing well. She also alleged that she is getting along better than before the collision and that no future surgery is currently planned, as she did not undergo a fusion. However, both the plaintiff’s treating spinal surgeon and the defense’s orthopedic surgery expert testified that since Carrillo had surgery, she would require future care, including epidural injections and physical therapy. The plaintiff’s treating surgeon also opined that Carrillo might eventually need surgery at an adjacent level. Prior to the surgery, Carrillo only missed two days of work even though she claimed she had neurological symptoms and was in extreme pain. However, she claimed that she will miss more work as she undergoes additional care for her injury. Thus, she sought recovery of past and future medical costs and future loss of earnings. She also sought recovery of damages for her past and future pain and suffering. Defense counsel argued that Carrillo’s injury was due to a pre-existing condition. Counsel also argued that Carrillo’s surgery was not necessitated due to the accident. The defense’s expert orthopedic surgeon opined that Carrillo’s injury was building up over time until it ignited and that it was only a coincidence that her symptoms occurred after the accident.