On July 14, 2011, at 2:50 p.m., plaintiff Miriam Sandoval, 19, a college student, was operating her 2011 Toyota Tercel on Central Valley Highway 43, near California Avenue in Shafter, with her mother, plaintiff Esther Sandoval, an unemployed 47 year old, in the front passenger seat. Miriam Sandoval was driving in the left, number 1, lane with the intention of making a left into a courthouse parking lot. However, she ended up stopping just past the entrance to the parking lot. Subsequently, a vehicle operated by Julia Lugo rear-ended the stopped Toyota. Miriam Sandoval and Esther Sandoval both claimed neck . Miriam Sandoval and Esther Sandoval sued Lugo. The Sandovals alleged that Lugo was negligent in the operation of her motor vehicle. Specifically, they claimed that Lugo failed to keep a proper lookout and see their stopped vehicle. Lugo claimed that the Sandoval vehicle had no brake lights or turn signal engaged. However, she later conceded liability., Both Miriam Sandoval and Esther Sandoval claimed immediate neck and back pain. However, they both went home after the accident, but then presented to a clinic for medical treatment four to five days later. They then both sought treatment from a chiropractor two weeks later. Miriam Sandoval treated with her chiropractor through August 2011 and into September 2011. She then returned to school, but claimed she still had pain after the treatments. She claimed that as a result, she had a hard time carrying books and sitting for long periods of time in class. Miriam Sandoval is now a teacher’s aide. She claimed that as a result of her continued back pain, she has a hard time at work because she is constantly leaning over for the children, standing all day, and walking around the class when it is hard for her to walk. Esther Sandoval claimed she was stuck in the face by the head rest of Miriam Sandoval’s seat, which detached during the accident. She claimed she suffered an annual tear of her lumbar spine. Esther Sandoval subsequently treated with her chiropractor through the end of September 2011 and then saw him once a month until April/May 2012. Thereafter, she saw the chiropractor two to three times per week for several months. At trial, Esther Sandoval claimed that despite treatment, she was still having 10-out-of-10 pain. She alleged that, prior to the accident, she helped with her husband’s trucking business and that she would go with him on trips to help with vendors and check off equipment. However, she claimed she could no longer do help her husband, or do any chores, housework or cooking. Esther Sandoval claimed that as a result of her continued pain, the plaintiffs’ treating chiropractor and an orthopedist suggested that she continue chiropractic treatment for an additional four years. She further claimed that she wanted to pursue epidural injections, which the orthopedist recommended. Thus, Miriam Sandoval and Esther Sandoval each sought recovery for their respective past and future medical costs. They also sought recovery of damages for their respective past and future pain and suffering. Esther Sandoval’s husband and Miriam Sandoval’s father, J. Merced Sandoval, initially sought recovery of damages for his loss of consortium, but his claim was later removed and he was dismissed from the case. Defense counsel noted that Lugo testified that she rear-ended the Sandoval vehicle at 20 to 25 mph. Thus, counsel contended that the Sandovals sustained soft-tissue , which were expected, but disputed the claims that the Sandovals’ suffered from continued pain. Defense counsel contended that the Sandovals’ X-rays, taken immediately after the incident, showed that nothing was fractured and that MRIs taken more than a year later showed that the Sandovals’ alleged ongoing pain had to be attributed to another cause or was pre-existing. In addition, defense counsel noted that Esther Sandoval claimed that she had continuing pain, but that reports from Esther Sandoval’s primary physician state that she is fine. In regard to the plaintiff’s expert, defense counsel argued that the plaintiffs’ treating chiropractor perjured himself and had been misrepresenting himself for over 30 years. Counsel noted that the plaintiffs’ treating chiropractic expert testified that he was Board Certified, but certification requires an additional two to three years of education (approximately 400 hours of class time) in a specialty and requires the person to pass an exam in that specialty. The defense’s chiropractic expert testified that some would have been warranted, but that the Sandovals’ treatment, at most, should have been eight to 10 weeks, with the exception of Esther Sandoval, whose treatment could have even been as long as 16 weeks due to her age. The expert noted that although Esther Sandoval claimed an annual tear due to the accident, an annual tear is not caused by trauma and everyone has annual tears, it just depends on whether they progress or not. Thus, the defense’s chiropractic expert opined that Esther Sandoval’s annual tear must have been pre-existing. Defense counsel further argued that the Sandovals did not do anything to help their pain. Specifically, counsel noted that Miriam Sandoval said that she did not use a rolling backpack nor did she use the elevators at her college because they were only for the disabled. Counsel also noted that both plaintiffs had chiropractic treatment and had testified that they wanted to continue with that same chiropractic treatment. However, defense counsel argued that if the Sandovals were still having pain, than the treatment must not have been helpful.