News

“The unavoidable truth is that money cannot genuinely compensate for emotional trauma.” Gregory v. Chohan, 670 S.W.3d 546, 556 (Tex. 2023). Yet, despite “the inherent difficulty in assigning a dollar value to the anguish and loss suffered by the grieving family… this is what we ask juries to do.” Id. at 555. In 2023, the Texas Supreme Court reshaped how attorneys must approach proving (or challenging) noneconomic damages. Specified evidence, and how it is framed, is critical to securing a judgment.

Gregory v. Chohan’s New Requirement

In Gregory v. Chohan, the Texas Supreme Court was faced with evaluating the size and propriety of a jury’s noneconomic damages award. Following a fatal car accident, the decedent’s family brought a wrongful death action against the driver causing the accident and her employer. The jury awarded $16.8 million to the family, which included $15 million in mental anguish and loss of companionship damages. Upon review, the Supreme Court determined that there was insufficient evidence to support the award. Specifically, the Court found that plaintiffs relied on “unsubstantiated anchoring”—assigning an unrelated value to the plaintiffs’ loss.

Prior to verdict, plaintiffs urged the jury to award two cents for every mile the company’s trucks drove in the year of the decedent’s death—framing it as giving defendants their “two cents’ worth.” The proposal was not tied to any evidence of the family’s loss but instead implied that a profitable company should be made to pay for denying justice. The Supreme Court concluded that the damages were not rationally connected to the evidence presented.

Gregory v. Chohan prohibits untethered reasoning. Noneconomic damage awards must be rationally based and supported by evidence that establishes (1) the existence of compensable loss; and (2) the amount awarded. The same kind of evidence supporting the existence of a noneconomic damage must support the amount awarded.

What Evidence Establishes a Rational Connection?

Courts need to see evidence tying the nature, duration, and severity of the injury to the amount sought. But Gregory v. Chohan stopped short of listing permissible ways to reach this burden. Nonetheless, succeeding cases indicate that the following forms of evidence are acceptable to prove the requisite rational relationship:

• Testimony describing how an injury alters daily life can support a measurable award—such as evidence of disrupted sleep, diminished appetite, heightened anxiety, or lasting changes to routine. In Elizondo v. Reyna, the court affirmed an $18,000 mental anguish award where a $25-per-day calculation was tied directly to the plaintiff’s lived experience. No. 04-24-00284-CV, 2025 Tex. App. LEXIS 6644, at *22 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Aug. 27, 2025, no pet h.).
• Concrete time-based evidence linking the injury’s severity to its duration. In Kelly Custom Homes, LLC v. Hopper, a $150,000 award was upheld where a per-day method corresponded to two years of documented daily anguish, reinforced by financial strain and negative impact to family relationships. No. 14-23-00793-CV, 2024 Tex. App. LEXIS 5770, at *18 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th] Aug. 13, 2024, pet. denied).
• Evidence of ongoing or worsening harm likewise supports larger awards. In Garza v. Escamilla, the court affirmed an increased award based on testimony regarding deterioration over time and the plaintiff’s projected lifespan. 712 S.W.3d 718, 728 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2025, no pet. h.).
• Where physical injuries produce identifiable psychological consequences, courts have recognized the connection as sufficiently concrete. In Herchman v. Lee, evidence that facial scarring led to repeated public reactions and hours of daily anxiety about her appearance supported a $1.2 million noneconomic damages award. No. 02-22-00217-CV, 2024 Tex. App. LEXIS 8266, at *25 (Tex. App.—Ft. Worth Nov. 27, 2024, pet. denied) (upholding a $1.2 million noneconomic damages award).

What Evidence Fails to Support a Noneconomic Damages Award? 

If the record does not supply a rational basis for the amount awarded, the verdict will not stand. Argument of counsel, no matter how forceful, cannot substitute for evidence. In Footy Rooty Dev., Inc. v. Doe, the court made clear that a damages figure unsupported by testimony, documentation, or other record evidence is legally insufficient. No. 13-23-00413-CV, 2025 Tex. App. LEXIS 9929, at *19 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi Dec. 30, 2025, no pet. h.). The most common failure occurs when counsel attempts to anchor the jury to a value untethered to the plaintiff’s injury. Courts have rejected comparisons between the worth of a human life and the price of luxury artwork, as well as analogies equating a plaintiff’s pain to professional athlete or CEO salaries or to the value of a defendant’s business assets. Team Indus. Servs. v. Most, 711 S.W.3d 31, 59 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st] 2024, no pet. h.); Alonzo v. John, 689 S.W.3d 911, 915 n.1 (Tex. 2024).

What we can take away is that a plaintiff’s story and lived experience, framed as measurable, is critical to compensation. Arbitrary value-setting will not sustain an award, no matter how alluring the argument. Trial lawyers must now construct the damages argument from voir dire forward, building foundational proof, rather than relying on creative rhetoric used in closing arguments.

If you have questions or would like to discuss further, please reach out to Becca Jordan or Jim Bartlett: