With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". — the essential elements of official immunity. Instead, appellants claim they are “statutorily immune from liability” under Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 312.006(a) (Vernon 2001) and Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem.Code Ann. § 101.101 (Vernon 2005). These are the same damages cap and notice provisions on which appellants based their plea to the jurisdiction. As previously discussed, neither statute confers immunity. Moreover, neither statute applies to individuals. By the terms of the statutes, section 312.006(a) applies under certain conditions to a “medical and dental unit, supported medical or dental school, or coordinating entity,” while section 101.101 applies only to “governmental units.” See Smith v. City of Houston, 960 S.W.2d 326, 328 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1997, no writ) (<HOLDING>). Appellants do not contend that the Physicians

A: holding that owners notice substantially complied with federal requirements because the owner intended to demolish the housing units and noted that ajlthough the notice did not follow the statutory language it would have been misleading had it strictly followed the statute
B: holding that the notice requirements of section 101101 do not apply to employees because they are not governmental units
C: holding that the federal register notice requirements do not apply to federal criminal statutes
D: holding that officers were entitled to qualified immunity because they did not know the residence for which they obtained a warrant actually contained multiple units
B.