With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". the Fifth Circuit has recognized that a statute does not leave a claimant “without any ‘viable’ defendants or ‘effectively den[y] a cause of action’ ” when she has claims remaining against other defendants. Jones, 785 F.2d at 1273 (citing Nelson v. Metallic-Braden Bldg. Co., 695 S.W.2d 213, 215 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1985, writ ref'd n.r.e.)); see also Gomez v. Pasadena Health Care Mgmt., 246 S.W.3d 306, 314 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2008, no pet.) (concluding that three-year survival statute for minor’s health-care liability claim did not effectively abrogate claimant’s right to redress against medical center and its general partner because claimant had alternative remedy of suit against physicians); Wilson v. AC & S, Inc., 169 Ohio App.3d 720, 864 N.E.2d 682, 695 (2006) (<HOLDING>), appeal dism’d, 113 Ohio St.3d 1457, 864

A: holding that new statute which required proof that asbestos exposure was substantial contributing factor to claimants medical condition could be applied to pending cases and did not abrogate claimants vested right because she was still able to pursue her cause of action and recover for injury caused by her husbands exposure to asbestos statute merely affected methods and procedure by which that action was recognized protected and enforced not the cause of action itself
B: holding that cause of action for asbestosis accrues upon discovery of disease not at time of exposure to asbestos
C: recognizing the cause of action
D: holding under facts presented that new statute could be applied to plaintiffs case because she was still able to pursue cause of action for injury caused by husbands exposure to asbestos
A.