With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". case, LSA-R.S. 40:1299.47(B)(2)(a) allows a health care provider to “raise any exception or defenses available pursuant to R.S. 9:5628.” (Emphasis added). As we recognized in Campo v. Correa, 2001-2707 (La.6/21/02), 828 So.2d 502, 509: LA. REV. STAT. ANN. § 9:5628 not only corresponds with the basic one year prescriptive period for delictual actions provided in LA.CIV.CODE art. 3492, it embodies the discovery rule delineated as the fourth category of contra non valentem, that is with the “single qualification that the discovery rule is expressly made inapplicable after three years from the act, omission or neglect.” Hebert, 486 So.2d at 724; see also Fontenot v. ABC Ins. Co., 95-1707 (La.6/7/96), 674 So.2d 960, 963; White v. West Carroll Hospital, Inc., 613 So.2d 150, 155 (La.1992) (<HOLDING>). A straight forward reading of LA. REV. STAT.

A: holding that la rev stat ann  95628 embodies contra non valentem in medical malpractice suits
B: holding that plaintiffs could not sue attorneys for legal malpractice so long as underlying medical malpractice action out of which legal malpractice claim arose was still pending on appeal
C: holding that the ada does not create a remedy for medical malpractice
D: recognizing that even when a prisoner files suit under section 1983 alleging medical malpractice against prison medical officials medical malpractice does not become a constitutional violation merely because the victim is a prisoner
A.