With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". (emphasis added). Rety stands only for the proposition that self-serving testimony of the defendant as to his or her net worth can be properly disregarded by a fact-finder when that testimony contradicts other evidence or can be considered implausible in light of the available evidence. Rety does not stand for the proposition that uncontradicted testimony as to net worth may be disregarded merely due to the failure of an affiant to attach financial documents confirming his or her testimony. When an affiant testifies as to his or her personal knowledge of facts, Alabama law generally does not require that witness to attach documents that further prove the same information in order for the affidavit testimony to be given probative value. See Johnson v. Layton, 72 So.3d 1195 (Ala.2011) (<HOLDING>). Obviously, the probative value of that

A: holding that ocga  91191 does not allow a plaintiff suing for medical malpractice to cure a failure to attach an expert affidavit through amendment
B: holding that affidavit of merit is not required in common knowledge cases
C: holding that physician testifying as to personal knowledge of medical treatment was not required to attach medical chart to affidavit in order to verify the affidavit testimony
D: holding that an affidavit did not provide probable cause sufficient to validate a warrant where the affidavit stated an incorrect date uncontradicted by any other specific fact in the affidavit
C.