The standard of review for an excessive damages complaint is factual sufficiency of the evidence. Maritime Overseas Corp. v. Ellis, 971 S.W.2d 402, 406 (Tex.), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1017, 119 S. Ct. 541, 142 L. Ed. 2d 450 (1998). As with any factual sufficiency challenge to a jury's verdict, we must consider and weigh all of the evidence, not just that evidence which supports the verdict, to determine whether sufficient evidence supports the damage award. Ellis, 971 S.W.2d at 406-07. We shall set aside the verdict only if it is so contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence that the verdict is clearly wrong and unjust. Ellis, 971 S.W.2d at 407. Since we are not the fact finder, we cannot pass upon the witnesses' credibility or substitute our judgment for that of the jury, even if the evidence would clearly support a different result. Id. "The process of awarding damages for amorphous, discretionary damages, such as mental anguish and pain and suffering, is inherently difficult because the injury constitutes a subjective, unliquidated, non-pecuniary loss.... Because there are no objective guidelines to assess the money equivalent to such injuries, the jury is given a great deal of discretion in awarding an amount of damages it determines appropriate." Brookshire Bros., Inc. v. Wagnon, 979 S.W.2d 343, 354 (Tex. App.--Tyler 1998, pet. filed).