On Nov. 3, 2009, at approximately 4 p.m., plaintiff Josefina Maldonado, 43, a homemaker, was driving west on Santa Monica Boulevard in Hollywood when she was rear-ended by a vehicle operated by Robert Sucher. Maldonado claimed to his lower back. Maldonado sued Sucher and his wife, Katherine Sucher, who was believed to be the owner of Mr. Sucher’s vehicle. Maldonado alleged that Mr. Sucher was negligent in the operation of his vehicle and that Ms. Sucher was vicariously liable for her husband’s actions. It was ultimately learned that Ms. Sucher was not owner of her husband’s vehicle. Thus, she was dismissed from the case early in the proceedings, and the matter proceeded to trial against Mr. Sucher only. Mr. Sucher claimed he did not see Maldonado’s vehicle because he was blinded by the sun when he turned onto Santa Monica Boulevard. Thus, he ultimately admitted liability for the accident., Three days after the accident, Maldonado presented to a hospital with complaints of lower back pain. She then underwent physical therapy for soft-tissue to her lower back from November 2009 through January 2010. She eventually underwent an MRI that revealed ruptured discs at L4-5 and L5-S1. The plaintiff’s treating/expert neurosurgeon recommended surgery at L4-5 on multiple occasions, and Maldonado ultimately underwent a decompression and microdiscectomy at L4-5 in July 2012. Maldonado claimed she still experiences lower back pain, which prevents her from caring for her home and children. Thus, she sought recovery of $172,000 in past medical costs, $130,000 in future medical costs for further treatment, $150,000 in damages for her past pain and suffering, and $150,000 in damages for her future pain and suffering. The defense’s orthopedic expert examined Maldonado pre- and post-surgery, and opined that Maldonado was not a surgical candidate and only suffered soft-tissue to her lower back. Thus, the expert opined that the surgery performed was medically unnecessary. Defense counsel moved to strike the “non-opinions” of the plaintiff’s expert life care planner and all of the testimony of the plaintiff’s expert economist, and the motions were granted by the court.