for however many millions of dollars, do you know how to calculate what that would be in dollars today? A. No, sir, I do not. Q. Okay. Did you — counsel asked you, did you retain experts to do that? A. Yes, sir, I did. Q. Okay. And you’ve had a chance to look at their reports? A. Yes, I have. Q. Okay. And the best you can recall, their reports come back to this— what number did you say again? A. 20 to $25 million. Thus, regarding his alleged damages, Dr. Cravens either (1) relied upon Dr. Ruhter’s opinions or (2) said that he did hot know. Insofar as Dr. Cravens was capable of relying upon Dr. Ruhter’s opinions for damages, Dr. Cravens’s testimony was no evidence because Dr. Ruhter’s testimony was no evidence. See Gharda USA, Inc. v. Control Sols., Inc., 464 S.W.3d 338, 352 (Tex.2015) (<HOLDING>). Insofar as Dr. Cravens confirmed that he did
holding that testimony of two experts was unreliable because they relied on the testimony of two other experts which was also unreliable holding an experts testimony unreliable because he did not consider alternative causes holding that experts causation opinion based on statements made by plaintiff was not inherently unreliable holding that defendant did not preserve state constitutional challenge to experts testimony at punishment hearing because defendant relied exclusively on federal cases in arguing for exclusion of experts testimony holding that other evidence properly admitted at trial was sufficiently strong to permit the conclusion that the improper admission of unreliable expert testimony was harmless