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
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  holding that the corroborating evidence need not be medical evidence if the appellant explains why medical evidence is not available 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 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 holding that there was no evidence or inferences to be drawn from the evidence to support the damage award