On Aug. 15, 2013, plaintiff Dana Blackwood, 37, a sales representative for a sporting events company, was driving north on the Santa Ana Freeway, also known as Interstate 5, in Santa Ana, when she was rear-ended by a vehicle operated by Soon Hee Kong. Blackwood claimed the impact aggravated a prior cervical spine condition and sprained the left shoulder. Blackwood sued the driver of the motor vehicle, Soon Hee Kong, and the owners of Soon Hee Kong’s vehicle, Grace Kong and Kwang Shik Kong. Blackwood alleged that Soon Hee Kong was negligent in the operation of her vehicle and that Grace Kong and Kwang Shik Kong were vicariously liable for Soon Hee Kong’s actions. Grace Kong and Kwang Shik Kong were ultimately dismissed from the case. Defense counsel contended that the rear-end collision was caused by stop-and-go traffic, which caused Blackwood to stop quickly in front of Soon Hee Kong. However, Soon Hee Kong admitted that she was traveling at approximately 70 mph when she momentarily looked down to tune her radio and that when she looked up, traffic was stopped in front of her. Thus, she claimed that she was unable to stop in time to avoid the collision., Blackwood presented to her physician the day after the collision with complaints of pain, specifically in her neck and left shoulder. MRIs revealed cervical deterioration of the cervical spine with foraminal narrowing at the C5-6 level. Thus, Blackwood claimed the collision caused an aggravation of her pre-existing, underlying arthritic condition. She subsequently underwent physical therapy on a regular basis between 2013 and 2015, along with intermittent chiropractic and acupuncture care. Approximately nine months after the collision, Blackwood received one facet injection, which allegedly offered her long-lasting relief and she was able to resume employment after the collision. However, she claimed that she still suffered long-term limitations, such as an inability to turn her neck and head. The plaintiff’s physicians determined that there was a potential need for future facet injections and for a future surgical fusion. However, they noted that Blackwood preferred to continue with a conservative approach to treatment and not opt for any surgery. Thus, the plaintiff’s physicians could not testify that Blackwood’s alleged need for such future surgery was reasonably medically certain, as opposed to potentially certain, to occur in the future. Blackwood sought recovery of damages for her past and future pain and suffering. Defense counsel contended that Blackwood’s underlying condition was the cause of her alleged cervical spine pain and that the condition would have evolved regardless of the rear-end collision.