With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". irrelevant which of these two models is more elegant from a conceptual standpoint. What is important — indeed, determinative — for our inquiry is which of the two each state has adopted. Pennsylvania's high court unambiguously has held that Pennsylvania law supports no cause of action for increased risk of cancer or for present emotional distress arising from the fear of cancer. Thus, the court's statement about medical monitoring damages is best viewed as the authorization of a distinct cause of action for medical monitoring expenses. Reading the opinion otherwise would defy its plain language regarding Pennsylvania's nonrecognition of increased risk and emotional distress causes of action. 75 . See, e.g., Burns v. Jaquays Mining Corp., 156 Ariz. 375, 752 P.2d 28, 29-31 (Ct.App. 1987) (<HOLDING>), review dismissed, 162 Ariz. 186, 781 P.2d

A: recognizing the cause of action
B: recognizing cause of action
C: holding that dismissal is proper for a derivative cause of action but not for a direct cause of action
D: holding that subclinical asbestosrelated injury is not sufficient to support cause of action
D.