On March 30, 2012, plaintiff Mary Cher, 10, a student, was a passenger seated in the back seat, behind the driver, of a vehicle traveling on Westmont Drive, in Los Angeles. After stopping at a stop sign at the intersection with Mt. Shasta Drive, the vehicle was rear-ended by a vehicle operated by Victor Mathews. Although Mary’s younger sister was also in the back seat and sustained no , Mary sustained to her head. Tung Cher, acting as Mary’s guardian ad litem, sued Mathews, alleging that Mathews was negligent in the operation of his vehicle. Mathews admitted liability., Mary sustained facial fractures, including fractures to her jaw and sinus. She also sustained fractured teeth, causing a tooth to become lodged in a sinus cavity. In addition, Mary sustained an occipital condyle fracture at the base of the skull and a T12 transverse process fracture. She was subsequently taken immediately to a hospital, where she was admitted for 11 days and her jaw was wired shut. Since she was not being able to speak due to her jaw being wired shut, Mary did not return to school for six to eight weeks. As a student in Los Angeles, Mary had a home health aide teacher sent to her house for one hour per week. About six months after the crash, Mary developed a fistula in an artery that had an abnormal connection to a vein. She subsequently had a right, internal carotid artery embolization. Mary claimed that she has residual back pain and that due to her traumatic brain injury, she needs supervision and help. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that, prior to the accident, Mary was on an Individualized Education Program, which a student can be on for any of 13 reasons, because Mary had the specific learning disability of visual processing. As a result, she had to have accommodations, such as bigger print, sitting closer to the chalkboard, etc. Plaintiff’s counsel noted that an IEP is under the umbrella of special education. However, plaintiff’s counsel contended that Mary now has neurocognitive impairments as a result of the accident. At the time of trial, Mary was in the ninth grade. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that although Mary has her parents, siblings and teachers to help her currently, when she is out of school at the age of 22, which is how long services are for someone with special education, Mary will need help with making more complex decisions, and could even be taken advantage of and exploited. Defense counsel contended that Mary must have always had an intellectual developmental disability and that no one, including the school system, caught it before the accident. Counsel also contended that Mary had no residual deficits or permanent from the accident. Thus, defense counsel asked the jury to award $0 for Mary’s alleged future medical costs, $0 for Mary’s alleged future wage loss, $0 for Mary’s alleged future pain and suffering, and only a range of $350,000 to $700,000 for Mary’s past pain and suffering. In response, plaintiff’s counsel noted that there were no documents before the accident stating that Mary had an intellectual developmental disability.