The trial court did not abuse its discretion in overruling objections to questions defense attorney asked plaintiff’s future medical damages expert about whether plaintiff’s future medical expenses would be covered by Medicare once plaintiff reached 65 and whether Medicare insurers paid full billed medical rates.  Under Howell v. Hamilton Meats & Provisions, Inc. (2011) 52 Cal.4th 541, plaintiff can only recover damages at the discounted rates doctors charge insurers.  So the questions were relevant to the calculation of future medical expenses and did not violate the collateral source rule.  The award of zero for future non-economic damages was supported by substantial evidence showing that plaintiff had mostly recovered by the time of trial, that future medical procedures would be mild, not pain producing, and that causation was questionable in view of an earlier unrelated concussion.  Finally, a compromise verdict is not per se reversible, and here the record did not show convincingly that the jury had awarded reduced damages due to any difficulty in reaching a decision as to the defendant’s liability.