If you have ever tried to explain what an injury really did to your life, you know how hard it is to put into words. The sleepless nights. The hobbies you gave up. The way you snap at your kids because you are in pain again. For years, defense lawyers in California have had a quiet trick to shrink that story down to almost nothing. They label it “garden-variety” emotional distress and argue that without a psychiatrist on the stand, your suffering is worth only a token amount.
On July 30, 2026, the California Court of Appeal pushed back. In Glick v. City of Los Angeles, the Second Appellate District reversed a trial judge who had cut a $13.1 million jury verdict down to $375,000 because the plaintiff had not called a mental health expert. The court held that there is no hidden cap on noneconomic damages just because a plaintiff sticks to their own testimony about how an injury changed their life. That ruling has real consequences for injured Californians, and we want to explain how we plan to use it.
What the Court Actually Held in Glick
The Glick case arose out of a gender discrimination claim, but the legal reasoning applies squarely to personal injury cases where pain and suffering are on the line. The plaintiff testified about the emotional impact of what happened to her. She did not call a psychiatrist or psychologist. She also made a stipulation under Code of Civil Procedure section 2032.320, which is the standard way plaintiffs avoid a compelled mental examination by agreeing they are not claiming extraordinary psychiatric injury.
The trial judge treated that stipulation as if it were a ceiling. The judge decided that because the plaintiff’s distress was “usual” and unsupported by expert testimony, the jury’s verdict was excessive, and cut it by more than 97 percent.
The Court of Appeal rejected that approach. The key points from the opinion matter for every injury victim in this state:
- A section 2032.320 stipulation does not create a legal cap on noneconomic damages.
- Plaintiffs are not required to call a mental health expert to recover substantial pain and suffering damages.
- Trial courts may not substitute their own fixed numbers for the jury’s judgment about human suffering.
- A jury is entitled to fully credit the plaintiff’s own credible account of how the injury affected their life.
In plain English, the appellate court told trial judges and defense lawyers that “garden-variety” is not a magic phrase that shrinks a verdict.
Why This Matters Outside the Employment Context
You might be wondering why an employment discrimination case affects someone recovering from a rear-end collision on the 405. The answer is that noneconomic damages work the same way across California civil cases. Whether the claim is discrimination, a car crash, a dog bite, or a fall at a grocery store, the jury is asked to translate human suffering into dollars using the same basic framework.
Defense lawyers in personal injury cases lean on the “garden-variety” label constantly. We see it in mediation briefs. We see it in motions in limine. We see it in post-verdict motions for remittitur or new trial. The argument almost always sounds the same: your client did not see a psychiatrist, did not get a formal diagnosis, and only complains of ordinary things like anxiety, poor sleep, and losing enjoyment of activities they used to love. Therefore, the argument goes, any award over some modest number is excessive as a matter of law.
Glick undercuts that argument. After this decision, when a defense lawyer or a judge tries to impose a de facto cap on your damages simply because you did not hire a psychiatric expert, we have a published appellate decision that says they cannot do that.
The Medical Reality Behind “Garden-Variety” Suffering
Before John Reardon became a lawyer, he spent 20 years as a chiropractor treating injured people every day. That background matters here because the defense narrative about “ordinary” distress usually ignores basic clinical reality.
Chronic pain rewires how you sleep, how you concentrate, and how you interact with the people you love. A neck injury that keeps you from turning your head while driving is not just a physical limitation. It is a source of constant, low-grade fear every time you get in a car. A shoulder injury that stops a parent from picking up their toddler is not just a range-of-motion problem. It is a daily reminder of what the injury took from them.
None of that requires a psychiatrist to explain. It requires an honest patient, a careful medical record, and a jury willing to listen. That is exactly the kind of evidence Glick protects. When we prepare an injury case, we treat the emotional and lifestyle impact of the injury as a core part of the medical picture, not a footnote. Insurance adjusters and defense lawyers frequently try to separate the “physical” injury from its downstream effects on sleep, mood, relationships, and daily function. That separation is artificial, and we push back on it hard.
How to Tell Your Story in a Way Juries and Judges Will Credit
Glick reinforces something we already believe. Your own testimony, told honestly and in detail, is powerful evidence. But powerful does not mean careless. Insurance companies and defense lawyers will scrutinize every word. Here is how we help clients prepare to tell their story effectively.
Keep a recovery journal from the start. Write down pain levels, sleep quality, activities you had to skip, and how you felt emotionally. Do it in short entries several times a week. This kind of contemporaneous record is far more persuasive than trying to reconstruct months of suffering from memory two years later.
Be specific, not dramatic. Juries and judges believe details. “I used to coach my daughter’s Saturday soccer team, and I have missed every game since the crash” lands harder than “my life is ruined.” Concrete before-and-after comparisons give the jury something they can measure.
Do not overstate. If you had a good day, say so. Consistency and honesty build credibility. Exaggeration hands the defense a weapon.
Involve the people who see you every day. Spouses, adult children, close friends, and coworkers can testify about changes they have observed. Lay witness testimony is admissible and often more powerful than expert testimony because it comes from people with no financial stake in the outcome.
Document treatment consistently. Gaps in medical care are one of the defense’s favorite talking points. Even when active treatment ends, follow-up visits and honest reports to your providers about ongoing symptoms create a paper trail that supports your testimony.
Using Glick to Push Back on Lowball Valuations
The most immediate use of Glick is at the negotiation table. Insurance adjusters and defense lawyers assign internal values to claims based partly on what they think a judge would let a jury award. When they believe a court will cut anything over a certain number, they lowball with confidence.
After Glick, that calculation changes. When we present a demand that includes substantial pain and suffering damages supported by our client’s own testimony and lay witness observations, the defense can no longer wave the “garden-variety” flag and assume a judge will bail them out with remittitur. If a case goes to trial and the jury returns a strong noneconomic damages verdict, Glick provides direct appellate authority against post-trial motions that argue the number is too high solely because there was no mental health expert.
We also expect this decision to affect motions in limine. Defense lawyers frequently try to limit the scope of pain and suffering testimony before trial even starts. Glick supports the position that a plaintiff’s lived experience is admissible, relevant, and sufficient on its own to support meaningful damages.
What Glick Does Not Do
We want to be honest about the limits of the decision. Glick does not guarantee a large verdict. It does not eliminate the defense’s right to cross-examine you or challenge your credibility. It does not remove the jury’s job of deciding what your suffering is actually worth. And it does not mean expert testimony is never useful. In cases involving traumatic brain injury, PTSD, or documented psychiatric conditions, expert testimony can still add significant value.
What Glick does is prevent judges and defense lawyers from imposing a hidden ceiling that never should have existed in the first place. It puts the decision back where it belongs, with the jury.
Large verdicts still attract scrutiny. Consistent testimony, credible documentation, and careful case preparation still matter enormously. What Glick changes is the legal backdrop against which all of that work gets evaluated.
Talk to Us Before You Accept a Number
If you are dealing with an injury claim in California and the insurance company is treating your pain and suffering as an afterthought, you deserve a real conversation about what your case is worth. The Glick decision is one more tool we can use to make sure your story gets heard and valued the way California law intends.
At Reardon Injury Law, we combine 20 years of clinical experience with years of personal injury litigation to build cases that reflect the full impact of an injury, not just the medical bills. If you would like a straightforward assessment of your claim, call us at (657) 522-7122 for a free consultation. You pay nothing unless we win.