In Graf v. Marvin Engh Truck Co. (1962) 207 Cal. App. 2d 550, the plaintiff suffered injuries in an automobile accident. Although some of the trial testimony from the plaintiff's doctors concerning the extent of injuries and the fact that they were caused by the accident was undisputed, there was also some evidence of a pre-existing condition and the defendant's expert testified that he did not believe that the plaintiff's damages were as severe as was claimed. (Id. at pp. 552-554.) The jury awarded the plaintiff damages that were less than the plaintiff's total medical bills. (Id. at pp. 551, 553.) A motion for new trial was denied and an appeal taken by the plaintiff, who contended that the award was inadequate. In affirming the judgment the court stated, at page 555: "It is not always necessary that a jury award any particular amount as damages in returning a verdict for the plaintiff. It is not always necessary that the amount of the award equal the alleged medical expenses, for it has long been the rule that the costs alone of medical treatment and hospitalization do not govern the recovery of such expenses. It must be shown additionally that the services were attributable to the accident , that they were necessary, and that the charges for said services were reasonable." Further, the court noted that although some "testimony of plaintiff's doctors was uncontradicted in reference to their findings and their opinion that plaintiff's alleged injuries were caused by this accident, the trier of fact may reject the uncontradicted testimony of a witness provided he has not acted arbitrarily. The jury might well have believed that the hospital charges and the charges of plaintiff's doctors were not entirely related to this accident, or that plaintiff may have led them to believe that he was suffering from pain when in fact he was not. Under these circumstances, defendant would not be liable for all of the charges incurred." (Id. at pp. 555-556.)