With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". without restrictions. This testimony from Doctor Wolfe, which was the only expert medical testimony offered, does not support Mrozg's assertion that Harrison's failure to cooperate with prescribed treatment, exaggeration of symptoms, and failure to complete physical therapy aggravated or increased his injuries. To the contrary, Doctor Wolfe testified that ninety percent of people with Harrison's soft tissue injuries "get well within three (8) months, ninety (90) days" and that Harrison recovered in approximately seven weeks. Tr. at 185. Accordingly, we cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion when it determined that the evidence did not support the giving of the mitigation of damages instruction. See, e.g., Kristoff v. (Glasson, 778 N.E.2d 465, 474 (Ind.Ct.App.2002) (<HOLDING>). For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the

A: holding that a plaintiff can seek statutory damages even in the absence of actual damages
B: holding that the plaintiff failed to raise an issue of fact regarding her retaliation claim because she failed to offer any evidence of a causal relationship between her involvement in protected activity and the adverse employment action
C: holding that plaintiffs proof that she became depressed and was prescribed depression medication by her family physician was insufficient to support claim and stating evidence that randolph is very depressed and very upset is insufficient to sustain damages for mental anguish
D: holding that evidence that plaintiff did not regularly perform her prescribed exercises was insufficient to support a mitigation of damages claim in the absence of physician testimony that she failed to mitigate her damages
D.