Plaintiff-appellant, a lady 77 years old, was struck by defendant’s truck. Upon trial of her suit against the Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Company, a jury awarded her $1,400.93. She claims the_ verdict was inadequate After the accident, and against her wishes, appellant was taken to a hospital where, as described by her family physician, she was mostly an angry woman.” This was on September 28, 1961, at Corbin, Kentucky. Her doctor had x-rays taken which, in his view, merely disclosed extensive arthritic degeneration of her vertebrae, with no evidence of any injury resulting from her accident. Mrs. Smith left the hospital after an overnight stay and returned to her apartment in Corbin, Kentucky. She received no medical attention thereafter until two weeks later when her son came for her and took her to Louisville. There, her daughter made an appointment with a doctor who saw Mrs. Smith on October 12, 1961. This doctor saw evidence of a compression fracture of one of her vertebrae, which he attributed to her accident. The only medical assistance prescribed for her was a brace which appellant was still wearing at the time of trial in November, 1962. Her Louisville doctor thought she would have to wear the brace for another six months. A third doctor saw evidence of a compression fracture in her vertebrae, but indicated that it was healed at the time he examined his x-rays.

The plaintiff was unusually active for her age, but stated that she suffered pain in her back. She travels by plane from Louisville to Corbin, Kentucky, where she maintains her own apartment. No one meets her at tlle airport. “I just a ^ax^ ^ce me over X I g0 over adone-

In reply to the question, “Mrs. Smith, is there anything that you could do before ^ acddent that you have been un_ aWe to do gince the accidentr she an. swered, “No.”

Her only out-of-pocket loss was a medieal bill of $230.93, $150.00 of which was the fee of the doctor who found evidence of a fracture. Her additional damages, therefore, consisted of pain and suffering. The jury> after finding for piaintiff, awarded her a total of $1,400.93. Plain-motion for a new trial on the ground 0£ inadeqUaCy 0f the verdict was denied by £be j>istriCt Judge who tried the case,

, , , We have here a case wbere d°ct°rs dis~ a§Teed as to. whethf Plal»üff bad re' ceived any injury to her back m the accident sued uP°n‘. Testimony that she did *ot receive a^ came from an °ld faralIf fri/nd and family doctor The ^ heard P]amtlff s own description of ber post-accident activities. The District Jud®e s denial of her motí°n *or a new *rial was a matter within his discretion Fairmount Glass Works v. Club Fork Coal Co., 287 U.S. 474, 481, 53 S.Ct. 252, 77 L.Ed. 439, 444. We have recent y ha occaslon to consider *his sub^ect a2}d °ur own responsibilities m reviewing the denial of a motion fof new trial made on the STounds of ^adequate or excessive verdict Cross v Thompson 6 Cir., 298 F.2d 186, 187. find nothin^ there, or. here requiring us to reverse the Disnc^ u<tee*

Judgment affirmed.