damages bars or limits any recovery herein,” Plaintiff argues that this is not a valid affirmative defense, because a p July 2, 1994, 982 F.Supp. 1101, lili (D.S.C.1997) (in holding that even though plaintiff refused to take antidepressants, he did not fail to mitigate damages, the court explained that a plaintiff has the duty to mitigate damages and the “court can consider whether that person has failed to follow the advice of their physician or other treating professional”) (citation omitted); Salas v. United States, 974 F.Supp. 202, 211 (W.D.N.Y.1997) (concluding that plaintiff cannot be charged with a failure to mitigate damages because she made reasonable efforts to treat and cure her condition); Baker v. Dorfman, No. 97-7512-DLC, 1999 WL 191531, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 6, 1999) (<HOLDING>); Rogan v. Lewis, 975 F.Supp. 956, 966 n. 14
recognizing as separate from pain and suffering recognizing as an element of pain and suffering holding that a jury could have reasonably concluded after receiving an instruction on mitigation of damages related to pain and suffering that plaintiff took reasonable steps to alleviate his distress holding that a jury cannot award damages for medical expenses and lost wages without also awarding damages for pain and suffering where the plaintiff was injured due to the defendants negligence holding that jury could not logically award all costs for the surgery and no damages for future pain and suffering