On Nov. 2, 2010, plaintiff Jennifer Maes, 27, an inventory auditor, was driving a vehicle on Mooney Boulevard in Visalia with plaintiffs Tiffany Rojas, 41, an inventory auditor, and Gloria Galarza as passengers. When they were at the intersection with Feemster Avenue, they collided with a vehicle owned by Geary Gong and operated by Kyli Brown. Maes, Rojas and Galarza claimed from the collision. Maes, Rojas and Galarza sued Brown and Gong. They alleged that Brown was negligent in the operation of her vehicle and that Gong was vicariously liable for Brown’s actions. Galarza settled with the defendants for $10,000 immediately prior to trial, while Gong settled during trial, agreeing to tender his statutory limits as a non-negligent owner of $15,000 per plaintiff. Thus, the matter proceeded to trial with Maes’ and Rojas’ claims against Brown only. Maes and Rojas claimed that Brown negligently made a U-turn in front of their vehicle, in violation their right of way. Brown alleged that she proceeded into the plaintiffs’ lane of travel because she was unable to see them approaching. However, she claimed that Maes, as the driver of the other vehicle, was negligent based on her speed, making Maes at least partially liable for the accident., Maes was taken by ambulance to Kaweah Delta District Hospital, while Rojas was transported to the hospital by a Good Samaritan because no ambulance was immediately available. Maes was ultimately discharged with a diagnosis of “no apparent injury” and Rojas was discharged with a diagnosis of a “lumbar strain.” Maes claimed that she swallowed glass during the accident and sustained a chondromalacic patellar/trabecular fracture of the right knee. She also claimed she suffered to her right wrist, and cervical and lumbar spine. Thus, she sought recovery of $295,040.17 in total damages, including $100,000 in past pain and suffering, $94,900 in future pain and suffering, $1,680 in lost earnings, and $98,460.17 in past medical expenses, which included a knee arthroscopy and a debridement/shaving of articular cartilage on April 2, 2012. Rojas claimed that she sustained to her neck, middle and lower back, left knee and left elbow. She also eventually she complained of right elbow . She subsequently underwent a tenotomy of the elbow on March 5, 2012. Thus, Rojas sought recovery of $461,560.21 in total damages, including $85,710.21 in medical expenses, $21,850 in past wage loss, and $100,000 in past pain and suffering, and $100,000 for future pain and suffering. She further alleged that her total damages included $100,000 for future neck surgery, $30,000 for future neck injections, $3,500 for job re-training and $17,100 for future wage loss. Defense counsel argued that the medical treatment obtained by each plaintiff and the bills incurred for that treatment were neither reasonable nor necessary. Counsel also argued that Rojas had abandoned her employment and, thus, was not entitled to an award for loss of earnings or earning capacity. The defense’s medical billing expert testified regarding the reasonable value of the medical care received by each plaintiff from the Spine and Orthopedic Center in Bakersfield and the Carrillo Surgery Center in Santa Barbara, both entities owned and operated by the plaintiffs’ expert in orthopedic surgery. The expert testified that Rojas’ billings from The Spine and Orthopedic Center were reduced from $58,833 to 26,232.09; that Rojas’ billings from the Carrillo Surgery Center were reduced from $19,618 to $6,111.33; that Maes’ billings from The Spine and Orthopedic Center were reduced from $24,531.65 to $17,344.65; and that Maes’ billings from the Carrillo Surgery Center were reduced from $56,758.46 to $13,104.05. All billings and reports of each visit the plaintiffs had with these entities were also sent directly to plaintiffs’ counsel. Defense counsel also called the district manager from RGIS, the place where both plaintiffs worked, to testify regarding Rojas’ failure to maintain any contact with the company after the accident, and to testify about his efforts to contact Rojas by phone, e-mail, text and registered mail. Defense counsel contended that this testimony supported their contention that Rojas abandoned her job immediately after the accident. In response, plaintiffs’ counsel noted that the defense’s expert orthopedic surgeon admitted that he had not seen any of the plaintiffs’ MRI films, that he does not actively practice medicine and that he had not performed any kind of surgery in decades. Counsel also noted that Rojas contended that she regularly kept her RGIS supervisor apprised of her and inability to work, as well as supplied the supervisor with a doctor’s note. In addition, under cross-examination, the RGIS manager admitted that the letter he allegedly sent to Rojas via certified mail was never certified.