Following Howell v. Hamilton Meats & Provisions, Inc. (2011) 52 Cal.4th 541 and Pebley v. Santa Clara Organics, LLC (2018) 22 Cal.App.5th 1266, this decision holds that a plaintiff who has medical insurance but chooses to use out-of-plan doctors for his care is treated for damage purposes as if he were uninsured and may submit the doctors’ bills as evidence of past medical expense damages so long as he also produces some evidence that he has paid or incurred liability in the amount of the bills. The bills are some evidence of reasonable value of the services provided. The plaintiff’s damages are limited to the lesser of reasonable value or incurred expense. The plaintiff’s decision to use out of plan doctors is not a failure to mitigate damages. Defendant should have been allowed to question plaintiff and his doctor witnesses about the fact that plaintiff’s lawyers referred him to those doctors since it was relevant to show they had a motive to inflate their bills, but the error in excluding that testimony was harmless as defendant got the point across to the jury anyway. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying an indefinite continuance of trial when one of the defense experts became ill. The expert’s video-taped deposition had been taken and could be used in place of live testimony.