Only if probable harm or resulting prejudice cannot be rectified by admonition or further instruction will the alleged misconduct be passed on in absence of timely objection. Brown v. Friedman, Tex. Civ.App., 451 S.W.2d 588, 589. "We have recognized that misconduct in argument may be so flagrantly improper and evidently prejudicial it may be a ground for new trial even though no exception was taken when the argument was made. * * * [Citing authorities]."

This is legally and factually sufficient evidence upon which a jury could have awarded past and future medical expenses. Brown v. Friedman, 451 S.W.2d 588 (Tex.Civ.App. — Houston [1st Dist.] 1970, no writ). We are precluded by the form of the damage issue from knowing the amount awarded for each element of damage.

McIver v. Gloria, 140 Tex. 566, 169 S.W.2d 710 (1943); Soriano v. Medina, 648 S.W.2d 426 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1983, no writ); City of Rosenberg v. Renken, 616 S.W.2d 292 (Tex.Civ.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1981, no writ); Thomas v. Jenkins, 481 S.W.2d 464, 466 (Tex.Civ.App. — Amarillo 1972, writ ref'd n.r.e.); Mills v. Thomas, 435 S.W.2d 593 (Tex.Civ.App.-Tyler 1968, writ ref'd n.r.e.). Future Medical expense: Hughett v. Dwyre, 624 S.W.2d 401, 405 (Tex.App.-Amarillo 1981, writ ref'd n.r.e.); Southwestern Bell Tel. Co. v. Davis, 582 S.W.2d 191, 195 (Tex.Civ.App.-Waco 1979, no writ); Brown v. Friedman, 451 S.W.2d 588, 590 (Tex.Civ.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1970, no writ); City of Houston v. Moore, 389 S.W.2d 545, 550 (Tex.Civ.App.-Houston 1965, writ ref'd n.r.e.); Edens-Birch Lumber Co. v. Wood, 139 S.W.2d 881, 887 (Tex.Civ.App.-Beaumont 1940, writ dism'd judgmt cor.). 3 STATE BAR OF TEXAS, TEXAS PATTERN JURY CHARGES PJC 80.09 (1982).

Hughett v. Dwyre, 624 S.W.2d 401 (Tex.App. — Amarillo 1981, writ ref'd n.r.e.). See also Keller Indus., Inc. v. Reeves, 656 S.W.2d 221 (Tex.App. — Austin 1983, writ ref'd n.r.e.); Thate v. Texas Pac. Ry. Co., 595 S.W.2d 591 (Tex.Civ.App. — Dallas 1980, no writ); Southwestern Bell Tel. Co. v. Davis, 582 S.W.2d 191 (Tex.Civ.App. — Waco 1979, no writ); Brown v. Friedman, 451 S.W.2d 588 (Tex.Civ.App. — Houston [1st Dist.] 1970, no writ). We find evidence and inferences which, considered with all the surrounding circumstances, were sufficient to allow the jury to find $53,000.

A jury, however, may award future medical damages based on the nature of the injury, the medical care received before trial and plaintiff's condition at trial. Brown v. Friedman, 451 S.W.2d 588 (Tex.Civ.App. — Houston [1st Dist.] 1979, no writ). The doctor testified to an amount in excess of the jury's award; therefore, the award of $30,000 is supported by sufficient evidence. We overrule point of error nineteen.

"The general rule with respect to improper argument is well settled: a party must object to it at the time it is made and his objection must be overruled; it is only when the probable harm or the resulting prejudice cannot be eliminated or cured by retraction or instruction that a new trial will be awarded in the absence of a timely objection." Brown v. Friedman, 451 S.W.2d 588 (Tex.Civ.App.-Houston (1st Dist.) 1970, no writ). The last time the argument was made the plaintiff's counsel was attempting to equate the argument with one made by defendant's counsel concerning punitive damages.

Edens-Birch Lumber Co. v. Wood, Tex.Civ.App. Beaumont (1940), 139 S.W.2d 881 (err. dismd. jdm. corr.); Brown v. Friedman, Tex.Civ.App. Houston (1970) 451 S.W.2d 588, n.w.h. A careful examination of the record clearly shows that there is plenty of evidence to support the Jury's findings to Special Issue No. 7. Point No. 7 is overruled. By Points 8 and 9, Appellant says the evidence is insufficient, and is against the great and overwhelming weight and preponderance of the evidence to support the finding of the Jury to Special Issue No. 7. If you calculate the past medical expenses that Mrs. Irwin had been required to incur, along with the evidence that she will be required to incur future medical expenses, wear a back brace intermittently for the rest of her life, with a life expectancy of 39.6 years, we find the evidence to be fully sufficient to support the Jury's findings, less the $2,000.