On June 15, 2013, plaintiff Katherine Hallock, 38, an FBI intelligence analyst, was stopped at a red traffic light on North Second Street, in El Cajon, when she was rear-ended by a vehicle operated by Eric Koch. Hallock claimed of the spine and shoulder. Hallock sued Koch, alleging that Koch was negligent in the operation of his motor vehicle. Koch conceded liability., Hallock claimed that she sustained a cervical sprain at the C2-3 level and tingling in the left, non-dominant shoulder and arm. She also claimed she suffered an exacerbation of migraine headaches. Hillock subsequently presented to an urgent care clinic approximately five days after the collision with complaints of back pain and headaches. Three days later, she commenced a five-month course of chiropractic care, which totaled 12 visits. Hallock alleged that her shoulder and neck issues resolved, but that her migraines were increasing in both frequency and intensity. As a result, she sought the care of a neurologist, who prescribed sumatriptan, in addition to Excedrin, which Hallock had already been taking. Hallock claimed that when the migraine headaches persisted after several months, she was then prescribed 25-milligrams of Topiramate, an anticonvulsant, to be taken daily, to address her severe headaches. However, when the new medication did not provide relief, the dosage was increased to 100-milligrams daily. Hallock claimed that it was only at that time when did she report improvement in her condition. She alleged that the medication and dosage ultimately brought the frequency of her migraines down from between 17 and 20 per month, at the most intense periods, to between one and three per month. Hallock claimed that she missed 176 hours of work, at a rate of $36 per hour, as a result of her condition. Thus, Hallock sought recovery of $6,336 in loss of earnings and an unspecified amount of medical expenses. She also sought recovery of damages for her past pain and suffering. Defense counsel argued that Hallock’s were exaggerated, particularly because another passenger in Hallock’s vehicle had no . Counsel also contended that the minimal damage to Hallock’s vehicle could not cause the alleged. Thus, defense counsel argued that the collision was not a substantial factor in causing harm to Hallock.