On Aug. 10, 2012, plaintiff Meera Sivarajah, 27, a biomedical regulatory affairs manager, was driving on Santa Monica Boulevard, in West Los Angeles, when she entered an intersection and was broadsided by a vehicle operated by Jacqueline Peck, who was attempting a left turn from the opposite direction at 12 mph. The impact subsequently caused Sivarajah’s vehicle to rotate counter-clockwise 180 degrees before stopping. Sivarajah claimed to her lower back. Sivarajah sued Peck, alleging that Peck was negligent in the operation of her vehicle. Peck admitted liability for the accident. The matter proceeded to a trial on damages, but it resulted in a mistrial in September 2016. As a result, the matter was re-tried., Sivarajah claimed that the accident caused a disruption of her a lumbar disc, which progressed over time and resulted in an L5-S1 disc bulge with impingement. In the year before the collision, Sivarajah had completed a triathlon and was actively training for a second triathlon leading up to the time of the incident. As a result of her training, she was suffering from problems with her knees and sacroiliac (SI) joint dysfunction, resulting in pain on the right side of her lower back. At the time of the accident, Sivarajah was returning home from receiving an injection (prolotherapy) to her left knee and had been told to schedule a similar procedure for her chronic SI joint pain. Four days after the crash, Sivarajah returned to the same medical office and was diagnosed with acute or chronic SI joint dysfunction. At that time, she advised of her involvement in the collision, and described her worsened pain in the lower back, which allegedly seemed to be a little higher up than her previous pain. As a result, she continued her ongoing physical therapy for three weeks. However, when she returned to the doctor she had seen on the date of accident to receive the knee injection, she was told to get a lumbar MRI. Three days later, Sivarajah underwent the MRI, which showed early degenerative changes, particularly at L5-S1, with no significant bulging. On Sept. 20, 2012, Sivarajah received the first injection to her SI Joint. She then stopped treatment with that doctor and went to UCLA Medical Center, Santa Monica, where she was given another SI Joint injection. Sivarajah then had a number of pelvic scans, which were all negative, and a third injection to the SI joint was given to her in January 2013, from which she reported three weeks of relief. Sivarajah was then referred to physical therapy, and began experiencing radicular symptoms in June or July of 2013. As a result, she saw a number of doctors, all thinking her radiculitis was related to the SI joint. However, she claimed her radicular symptoms increased. As a result, in February 2013, Sivarajah presented to a treating neurosurgeon, who recommended that she undergo a new lumbar MRI. This time, the MRI showed a 5- to 6-millimeter disc lumbar bulge at the L5-S1 level with impingement. Sivarajah’s treating physician recommended an injection(s), which Sivarajah rejected. Instead, on March 28, 2014, Sivarajah underwent a microdiscectomy, which she claimed provided her immediate relief for four to five weeks. However, she claimed the radicular pain returned and was worse than it was before the accident. She also claimed pain management did not give her any relief. As a result, Sivarajah visited the Mayo Clinic, where she was given an epidural that allegedly gave her some relief. At that time, it was determined that scar tissue had enveloped Sivarajah’s L5 nerve. However, she was not a candidate for a further surgical procedure, as it would likely cause more problems than correct. Thus, she started treatment with her treating pain management expert and underwent epidural injections. However, Sivarajah claimed there was no significant relief, so she was put on medication therapy for two years. In March 2016, Sivarajah tried treating with a temporary spinal cord stimulator, which she claimed gave her relief from the radicular symptoms. As a result, a permanent stimulator was implanted in July 2016. A number of non-retained doctors testified on behalf of Sivarajah, including her physician for SI joint issues and knee injections prior to the accident; an orthopedist, who was first to see Sivarajah after accident; her treating surgeon, who performed the microdiscectomy; and a spine surgeon, who saw Sivarajah in July 2013, one year after the accident. The plaintiff’s radiology expert testified that his interpretation of the first MRI was a 4-millimeter disc bulge with an annular tear. The treating spinal surgeon reviewed Sivarajah’s MRI taken one month after the accident and opined that, at that time, that Sivarajah’s problems were in the SI joint., Based on his determination, he recommended that Sivarajah undergo an ablation. However, the spinal surgeon testified that when he saw Sivarajah a second time in February 2014, after the second MRI, he opined that Sivarajah’s condition was new, as the lumbar disc was now 6-millimeters and impinging on the S1 nerve. The plaintiff’s physicians opined that the initial injury caused a disruption of the L5-S1 disc, causing it to progress over the months that followed the accident to the point of a full herniation. At trial, Sivarajah claimed that the leads of the spinal cord stimulator had just migrated, so her relief had diminished. Thus, she claimed she will need significant future care and home support related to her chronic pain condition. Sivarajah alleged that she is now disabled from work in Regulatory Affairs, and her counsel presented evidence of Sivarajah’s alleged future disability and economic projections for Sivarajah’s loss of earning capacity. Sivarajah further alleged that she will need future medical treatment to regain relief or have another surgery in order to replace the leads to the stimulator. In addition, she alleged that she will need to take medication and present to required medical check-ins. Thus, Sivarajah sought recovery of $172,897 in past medical costs, $288,154 in past wage loss, $4,176,783 in future medical care, and $1,826,094 in future loss of earning capacity. She also sought recovery of damages for her past and future pain and suffering. Defense counsel moved in limine to preclude plaintiff’s counsel from calling the plaintiff’s expert kinesiologist, as plaintiff’s counsel allegedly served a de-designation of a designated biomechanic expert for an earlier trial date. However, the court permitted the plaintiff’s kinesiology expert to testify on the condition that plaintiff’s counsel would produce the experts’ records that day and produce the expert for deposition at the plaintiff’s expense. As a result, the expert’s deposition was taken mid-trial day, before the expert testified. The plaintiff’s expert opined that the spin of the vehicle in the accident caused Sivarajah’s lumbar injury, and he noted an annular tear in the initial MRI, per the plaintiff’s radiology expert’s interpretation. The plaintiff’s expert Kinesiologist further opined that the lumbar injury progressed to 6 millimeters in the second MRI, which was taken 18 months later. Peck — who by the time of trial was elderly, bedridden, and incompetent in the absence of any injury from the accident — could not offer any testimony and was not in the courtroom during the trial. Her son subsequently came in to testify as to his mother’s condition post-accident and to the minor damage to his mother’s vehicle. Defense counsel contended that the accident occurred while Peck was traveling at 12 mph, and noted that there was no air bag deployment and that no police or other emergency vehicles responded to the scene. Thus, defense counsel argued that Sivarajah’s initial surgery was caused by her pre-existing condition, and was not related to the collision, but was related to Sivarajah’s training as a triathlete. The defense’s orthopedic surgery expert opined that the plaintiff’s disc problem at L5-S1 began prior to the collision, based upon Sivarajah’s right-sided lower back symptoms that were thought to be related to an SI joint dysfunction. He further opined that the progressive and worsening symptoms had no relationship to the minor impact, which caused no acute flare up of symptoms at the scene. The defense’s expert radiologist read the MRI taken a month post-accident at L5-S1, and opined that Sivarajah had a 2-millimeter disc bulge with no annular tear. He also opined the later herniation was due to natural and progressing disc disease, and repetitive trauma from training. At the re-trial, defense counsel disputed the alleged amount of Sivarajah’s future medical costs, questioning the numbers presented by the plaintiff’s expert life care planner and expert economist. Defense counsel contended that the plaintiff’s expert life care planner gave prognostications of future expenses, but did not take Sivarajah’s health insurance into account and had claimed to have received the expenses for outpatient procedures from the VA website. According to defense counsel, the plaintiff’s expert had prepared her life care plan to be used at the prior trial date, in September 2016, and that the prior plan estimated that the permanent implantation of spinal cord stimulators had a total past medical expense of $194,000. However, defense counsel contended that there was an obvious conflict, as the plaintiff’s total past medical costs — which included the two spinal cord stimulator procedures, several epidural injections, several MRIs, 1.5 years of physical therapy, and the microdiscectomy — were stipulated at $174,000. In addition, the defense’s life care planning and vocational rehabilitation expert opined that the plaintiff’s medical cost estimate in the new plan, which included $112,000 for an outpatient facility charge for battery replacement in the stimulator, was outlandish, as he found the same procedure at Cedars-Sinai for $18,000. Defense counsel further contended that the plaintiff’s expert economist admitted that if the plaintiff’s expert life care planner’s numbers were bad, so were hers, as she had assumed everything was good with the numbers.