cert. denied, 519 U.S. 1091, 117 S.Ct. 767, 136 L.Ed.2d 713 (1997)). In Patterson, we addressed two aspects of the proof necessary to support mental anguish damages. First, we articulated the level of specificity needed to prove a claim for mental damages under Carey. We held that there must be a “specific discernable injury to the claimant’s emotional state,” Patterson, 90 F.3d at 940, proven with evidence regarding the “nature and extent” of the harm, id. at 938. We acknowledged that “hurt feelings, anger and frustration are part of life,” and were not the types of harm that could support a mental anguish award. Id. at 940. And our language describing the specificity standard was unequivocal; that standard must be met before mental anguish damages can be awarded. See id. at 938 (<HOLDING>). Second, we addressed the types of evidence
holding that plaintiff must present such evidence holding that the sixth amendment right to present a meaningful defense does not entitle a defendant to present evidence on a question of law recognizing that nonmoving party must present affirmative evidence  to defeat summary judgment recognizing that a plaintiff could present evidence of futility holding that the plaintiff had failed to produce sufficient evidence to establish constructive notice because the plaintiff did not present any evidence to establish that the oil was on the floor for any length of time