On Aug. 22, 2008, at 6 pm, plaintiff Romy Youngquist, 14, a high school student, was riding her skateboard across Mission Street at the intersection with Bosworth Street in San Francisco. As she was crossing within a crosswalk with some friends, she was struck by a vehicle operated by Jose Pagaduan. Youngquist claimed to her hands, wrists, knee, back and head. Felicite Tchaco, acting as the guardian ad litem for Romy, sued Pagaduan for motor vehicle negligence. Romy claimed that she had the approved ‘walk’ symbol light as she entered the crosswalk and that Pagaduan failed to yield the right of way in violation of California Vehicle Code § 21950. Plaintiff’s counsel also presented two of Romy’s friends, each of whom testified that the light was in Romy’s favor. Pagaduan claimed that Romy was comparatively at fault, as she was riding a skateboard without wearing a helmet, was inattentive and had crossed against the light. The defense’s accident reconstruction expert opined that Pagaduan had a green light at the intersection with Bosworth Street, and that the traffic light sequence analysis indicated that Romy began to cross the street against either a flashing or solid red ‘don’t walk’ sign., Pagaduan transported Romy to a hospital after the accident. Romy and her friends claimed that he dropped them off at the hospital, but did not call 911 or leave his contact information. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that Pagaduan, as the only adult at the scene, had a responsibility to notify the police and exchange information with her, which he did not. Thus, Romy contended that she was treated initially for a right wrist sprain, but did not receive a full work-up at the emergency room for concussive symptoms. Romy sustained a sprain to her right, dominant wrist, as well as headaches. She subsequently wore a soft wrist brace for a couple of months and treated with a chiropractor three years after the accident. Romy claimed that she still suffers from frequent headaches and that she never suffered any headaches prior to the collision. She also claimed intermittent residual wrist and neck pain after performing some activities, for which she takes ibuprofen. She alleged that this pain interferes with school and limits her ability to participate in vigorous athletics. Additionally, Romy alleged that because of her wrist pain and brace, she could not play trumpet in an ensemble for several months, causing her to miss tryouts, which were critical to her. The plaintiff’s expert neurologist and treating physician opined that Romy’s past medical bills, which consisted of $10,000 for chiropractic care, were reasonable. The expert testified that even though there was not anything that could diagnose the cause of the condition, he opined that Romy’s headaches were related to the accident based on objective and subjective findings. In addition, the plaintiff’s experts testified that there were treatments that would mask Romy’s pain only. According to defense counsel, Romy claimed that due to losing Medi-Cal, she could not fully treat immediately after the accident and that intermittent neck injections would be needed annually for the headache and neck symptoms. Defense counsel contended that the plaintiff further asserted that future medical care would cost several hundred thousand dollars as a result of the annual injections and subsequently asked for a commensurate award for her future medical costs. Defense counsel contended that the E.R. workup on the date of the accident was thorough, and that the first reported complaints of headache and neck pain were not until 2 to 3 months after the accident. Counsel argued that the lesser headaches were caused by tension/stress, and that the plaintiff’s reported major headaches may have stemmed from light sensitivity and an uncorrected vision problem. Defense counsel further contended that the plaintiff’s medical history suggested intermittent headaches only, generally of mild severity. The defense’s expert neurologist testified that that the majority, if not all, of Romy’s claimed headaches were unrelated to the accident and that there was no need for any future accident-related treatment. Defense counsel further disputed there being any future residual and denied there being any need for future treatment.