At around 3:45 p.m. on Oct. 24, 2014, plaintiff Harish Uppal, 45, an operations manager for a small company that operated approximately a half dozen gas stations in the Los Angeles area, was driving his sedan on Interstate 605, also known as San Gabriel River Freeway, in Los Angeles. As Uppal began to slow his vehicle in response to slow conditions ahead of him, his vehicle was rear-ended by a large sport utility vehicle operated by Antonio Joseph Garcia II. The collision threw Uppal’s vehicle into a concrete jersey wall, allegedly causing Uppal to sustain head . Uppal sued Garcia and the owner of the SUV, Garcia’s employer, Advanced Environmental Compliance LLC. Uppal alleged that Garcia was negligent in the operation of the SUV and that Advanced Environmental Compliance was vicariously liable for Garcia’s actions. The defendants never formally accepted liability, and the matter resolved before any of the defense’s retained experts were deposed., Uppal sustained head lacerations and contusions, and he was immediately taken by ambulance to a hospital, where he remained for less than a day before being released. After being discharged from the hospital, Uppal complained of regular headaches and balance problems. He also claimed he experienced numerous cognitive deficits, including problems with memory, attention, concentration, multitasking, and decision-making. Uppal further claimed that when his concussion symptoms continued for several months, with some symptoms never subsiding, he was diagnosed with a traumatic brain injury. Uppal claimed that the diagnosis of a traumatic brain injury significantly affected his life and that as a result of his ongoing problems, he never returned to his job. Thus, Uppal sought recovery of medical costs, lost earning, and damages for his pain and suffering. His wife, Shivangi Uppal, presented a derivative claim seeking recovery for her loss of consortium. Defense counsel challenged the existence of Mr. Uppal’s alleged brain injury. Counsel contended that Mr. Uppal’s radiology at the hospital was negative for intracranial bleeding and, therefore, defense counsel disputed the diagnosis and severity of Mr. Uppal’s symptoms. In addition, defense counsel asserted that the accident did not cause Mr. Uppal’s alleged traumatic brain injury and damages associated with it.