With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". run. On appeal, the plaintiff argued that her action sounded in fraud, not negligence, and that the statute of limitations applicable to fraud actions, along with the tolling provision of § 6-2-3, applied to her action, not the limitations provisions of § 6- 5-482(a). The Court rejected this argument and held that the limitations provisions of § 6-5-482(a) governed. The Court reasoned that the allegedly fraudulent representations arose from a patient-physician relationship and the medical care the plaintiff had received and that the representations related solely to her medical condition. Benefield, 456 So.2d at 54; see also Bowlin Horn v. Citizens Hosp., 425 So.2d 1065 (Ala.1982); Johnson v. McMurray, 461 So.2d 775, 778 (Ala.1984); cf. Ex parte Golden, 628 So.2d 496, 498 (Ala.1993) (<HOLDING>). Mobile Infirmary argues that § 6-5-482

A: holding that the flsa preempted plaintiffs fraud claim
B: holding that a plaintiff has a duty to plead the date of discovery of fraud where the alleged fraud apparently occurred at a remote time
C: holding that a plaintiff cannot avoid the securities fraud exception by pleading mail fraud or wire fraud if the conduct giving rise to those offenses also amounts to securities fraud
D: holding that  65551 another part of the medical liability act applied to the plaintiffs claim of fraud against a defendant physician because the alleged fraud occurred during preoperative doctorpatient consultations
D.