With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". whatsoever. See (SOF 12, DE #33 at 4) (“Plaintiff has produced only his March 12, 2008 ‘Statement of Claim’ (and attached documents) in support of his alleged claim for damages”); (DE #57 at 4) (“Plaintiff has sworn that his ‘Statement of Claim’ ... completely sets forth his alleged claim for damages.”); (DE #85) (Court’s Notice of Consideration of Motion for Summary Judgement). A factfinder would have to engage in impermissible speculation in order to create a causal link between Plaintiffs alleged emotional distress injuries— which occurred over an eight-year period — and Bank of America’s alleged failure to properly investigate its reporting of a charged off account — which occurred over a three-month period. See Cousin v. Trans Union Corp., 246 F.3d 359, 370-71 (5th Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>). d. Plaintiffs Substantial Emotional Distress

A: holding that the corroborating evidence need not be medical evidence if the appellant explains why medical evidence is not available
B: holding in the context of the fcra that a claim for emotional distress must be supported by evidence of genuine injury  requiring a degree of specificity which may include corroborating testimony or medical or psychological evidence in support of the damage award 
C: holding that evidence of prior similar acts was not proof of medical malpractice or whether the doctor lacked the proper degree of knowledge or skill
D: recognizing that cue may be based on a showing that there was no evidence before the adjudicator that could have supported a denial of the claim on the merits that is that all of the evidence militated in support of the claim
B.