On April 18, 2017, plaintiff Kaily Albarran, 18, a high school senior at Perris High School and the manager of the school’s junior varsity baseball team, was waiting at Panther Park, in Perris, for busses to take her and the baseball team to an away game. While they waited, the players participated in a soft-toss, batting drill, during which Kaily was struck by a bat swung by a batter. Kaily claimed to her head, neck and face. Kaily sued the high school’s operator, Perris Union High School District. Kaily alleged that the school district was negligent in the supervision of the students and in conducting a soft-toss drill outside of designated and controlled places. Defense counsel argued that Kaily knew the players were doing the drill and moved out of the way, but that after some four to 10 swings, unseen by the batter or the coach, Kaily moved back into the swing path of the bat and was struck during the back swing. Counsel contended that the soft-toss batting drill is a common drill that was played at every practice and as a warm up to every game. Counsel also contended that the drill is safely conducted anywhere, provided that those in the area are made aware that it is taking place. As a result, defense counsel argued that the accident was not caused by the drill, but by Kaily’s failure to maintain a safe distance and remain situationally aware. Counsel also argued that Kaily was last seen looking down at her cellphone prior to the incident, but that Kaily should have been able to maintain situational awareness even while using a cellphone., Kaily was struck in the face, below her right eye, sustaining a laceration across her cheek near her eye. The hospital’s pictures of her face and video were admitted at trial. Kaily claimed she had no memory of the events until she was in the emergency room. She alleged she sustained a periorbital fracture and neck fractures. She was also diagnosed with a mild traumatic brain injury (a concussion) by her treating doctors at Riverside Medical Clinic in May or June 2017. Kaily received 12 stitches to repair the facial laceration, which healed well, but left her with a residual scar that was barely visible. Kaily claimed that she suffers from a permanent impairment due to the mild TBI and that as a result, she will continually require prescriptions and cognitive behavioral therapy. The plaintiff’s medical experts opined that Kaily’s post-concussive symptoms are permanent and that Kaily would need medication for the rest of her life. In addition, the experts opined that Kaily would need continued psychotherapy, biofeedback therapy, and life coaching. Kaily sought recovery of approximately $7 million in total damages, including past and future medical expenses, and damages for her past and future pain and suffering. Defense counsel argued that Kaily did not lose consciousness and that there was no evidence to support a claim of a permanent TBI. Counsel also argued that there were no periorbital or cervical fractures on the X-rays and that all test results were negative, with the exception of the neuropsychology tests, which showed feigning of symptoms. Defense counsel contended that the plaintiff’s neurosurgery expert based his diagnosis of a TBI on his own read of the CT scan of the head taken on the day of the accident and as well as relied on the medical records and reports from Kaily’s treating doctors at Riverside Medical. Counsel also contended that the plaintiff’s neurosurgeon claimed to have found a periorbital fracture on the right side, which was presented as the foundation for his opinion that Kaily sustained a TBI. However, defense counsel argued that the feature the expert declared to be a fracture was also seen on the other side and that the CT was read as negative by a radiologist at the time. Defense counsel further contended that the plaintiff’s expert claimed that he saw cervical fractures that the radiologist did not see, even though all of the studies were negative. In addition, defense counsel argued that although the plaintiff’s expert identified a study that may have shown microtears, that test was never done. In addition, defense counsel contended that Kaily had not diligently attended any of the treatment recommended by her doctors and that the medical evidence did not support the claim that any future treatment was medically necessary.