On July 14, 2009, plaintiffs Natosha Lee, 23, a homemaker and her young son, plaintiff Aiden Lee, were traveling west on Fifth Street in Ontario, when their vehicle was struck by a vehicle that was operated by Guy McKnight at the intersection of Fifth Street and Boulder Avenue. Lee and Aiden sued MacKnight for motor vehicle negligence. They alleged that MacKnight, 85, a World War II Veteran and retired Marine, made a mistake and turned into their path of travel. MacKnight admitted that he did not see the plaintiffs’ vehicle and struck it while making a left turn., Lee was treated at the scene for a laceration to her right forearm and later sought hospital care. Her X-rays and CT scans were normal, so she was diagnosed with soft-tissue to her neck and back and sent home. Lee received conservative physical therapy after the accident. She later became pregnant, and for 11 months she did not have any treatment or make any back complaints to medical providers during that time. After the pregnancy, her lower back pain persisted, but her neck got better. Lee eventually received two epidural injections for the back pain. Plaintiff’s counsel noted that Lee carried her baby all in the front, so there was less pressure on her lower back. Thus, counsel argued that Lee’s lower back complaints had to be a result of the collision. Lee’s past medical bills totaled approximately $52,000. She also sought recovery of damages for her past and future pain and suffering. Aiden was taken to a hospital after the accident to be examined and was treated and released. Thus, he only sought recovery of damages for his medical expenses and minor pain and suffering. Defense counsel argued that Lee’s epidural injections and medical bills were unnecessary and unreasonable. Defense counsel contended that Lee only suffered minor sprain/strain , which should have healed with 12 visits to physiotherapy. Counsel added that Lee had disc protrusions in her lower back that were degenerative and not caused by the collision, as testified to by the defense’s orthopedic and neuroradiology experts. Plaintiff’s counsel counter-argued that the defense’s orthopedic expert does 100-percent defense work and that the defense’s neuroradiologist is a full-time expert witness for the defense, who alleged makes $1.5 million per year testifying for the insurance defense.