the burden of proving the second element identified in Farmers’, specifically, that the claimant did not initiate the fight. See Farmers’, 144 Va. at 104, 131 S.E. at 241. Thus, the issue of whether the claimant initiated the fight is not an affirmative defense, but rather, an “integral part of the proximate causation analysis.” Nat’l Mkt. Share, Inc. v. Sterling Nat’l Bank, 392 F.3d 520, 527 (2d Cir.2004); see also E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. McCain, 414 F.2d 369, 374 (5th Cir.1969) (“The theory of new and independent cause is not an affirmative defense; it is but an element to be considered by the jury in considering the existence or non-existence of proximate cause.” (internal quotations omitted)); Resolution Trust Corp. v. KPMG Peat Marwick, 845 F.Supp. 621, 625 (N.D.Ill.1994) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, we conclude that the commission
holding a plaintiff cannot assert a violation of the ecoa as an affirmative defense holding that an antitrust injury is a necessary element of a  2 claim holding that the issue of whether the plaintiffs claim was barred by an intervening cause was not an affirmative defense but merely an assertion that the plaintiff cannot prove a necessary element of its claim holding that reasonable reliance is not an element of the defense holding the defendants claim that he was denied the right to testify was appropriate for direct review when the record was adequately developed to permit full consideration of the defendants claim the pertinent facts were undisputed a pcr hearing was not necessary to resolve a factual dispute and would not aid in the application of the law and the defendants claim was presented not as an ineffective assistance of counsel claim but rather as an error committed by the trial court in excluding the defendants testimony which was not an appropriate basis for an ineffective assistance of counsel claim