is not required to produce medical testimony to support a claim of emotional distress. Passantino v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer Prod., 212 F.3d 493, 513 (9th Cir.2000). In response, defendant argues that, when seeking damages for emotional distress, plaintiff fails to mitigate those damages when it fails to seek psychological counseling. Defendant argues that, in such circumstances, damages for emotional distress should be reduced. In addition to Petroci v. Transworld, No. 12-00729, 2012 WL 5464597 (W.D.N.Y. Oct. 19, 2012), upon which defendant relies, there are several cases indicating that the imposition of a duty to mitigate emotional damages is appropriate. See Neal v. Director, Dist. of Columbia Dept. of Corrections, No. 93-2420, 1995 WL 517249, at *15 (D.D.C. Aug. 9, 1995) (<HOLDING>); In re Air Crash Disaster at Charlotte, N.C.
holding that when plaintiff has proven injury but has failed to prove the amount of damages the plaintiff is only entitled to nominal damages holding that defendants failed to carry burden of proof to show that plaintiffs failed to mitigate damages when among other things they offered no evidence contradicting the plaintiffs evidence holding that evidence that plaintiff did not regularly perform her prescribed exercises was insufficient to support a mitigation of damages claim in the absence of physician testimony that she failed to mitigate her damages holding in a landlordtenant dispute that even though defendant proved failure to mitigate damages because it did not also prove how much the plaintiffs damages increased by failure to mitigate the trial court did not err in refusing to reduce plaintiffs damages holding that plaintiff failed to mitigate front pay damages by refusing to take antidepressants