computation. In his report and in the exhibits attached to it, he explained his calculus and the steps he took to ensure its reasonableness. Shipp’s report, including back-up figures and data, was admitted into evidence." We cannot agree that Shipp’s report and testimony áre devoid of facts, figures, or data. Compare Helena Chem. Co., 47 S.W.3d at 504 (explaining proper calculation of lost profits), with Holt Atherton Indus., Inc., 835 S.W.2d at 84 (explaining that'plaintiff s mere statement that he “lost out on”' $200,200 in income coupled with a statement as to profits shown on an income tax return constituted insufficient evidence of lost' profits), and Capital Metro. Transp. Auth. v. Cent. of Tenn. Ry. & Navigation Co., 114 S.W.3d 573, 581 (Tex.App.-Austin 2003, pet. denied) (<HOLDING>). Wise Electric also " challenges Shipp’s
holding the experts opinion testimony lacked a proper foundation when there was no physical evidence of sexual abuse and the experts admitted that their conclusions were based solely on the childrens statements that they had been abused holding evidence insuffi cient to support jurys 15 million lostprofits award when experts computations were not based on facts figures or data because computations ignored reality that plaintiff company had a history of losses and had never made a profit on its operations holding that an experts opinion must be based on facts in evidence or within his or her knowledge and that the admission of an experts opinion is reviewed for an abuse of discretion holding lostprofits award based on projected sales of a product not yet developed to the point of a working model too speculative because no evidence existed that the product had been sold to anyone holding that experts causation opinion based on statements made by plaintiff was not inherently unreliable