With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". of Rule 35(a) at issue. The facts before this Court clearly indicate that White’s physical condition is “in controversy,” as required by Rule 35(a). White filed this personal-injury action, seeking damages for pain and suffering, including a continuing burning sensation in his foot. White asserts that this ongoing discomfort is caused by the battery acid that he alleges a Wal-Mart employee allowed to leak on him. Wal-Mart argues that the ongoing discomfort is the result of White’s previously existing medical conditions, chiefly poor blood circulation. Because the medical cause of White’s discomfort is clearly in dispute, Wal-Mart has established that White’s “physical condition” is “in controversy.” Compare Lahr v. Fulbright & Jaworski, L.L.P., 164 F.R.D. 196, 199 (N.D.Tex.1995) (<HOLDING>), with Neal v. Siegel-Robert, Inc., 171 F.R.D.

A: holding in a fcra case that plaintiffs may not rely on mere  conclusory statements  rather they must  sufficiently articulate  true demonstrable emotional distress  including the factual context in which the emotional distress arose evidence corroborating the testimony of the plaintiff the nexus between the conduct of the defendant and the emotional distress the degree of such mental distress mitigating circumstances if any physical injuries suffered due to the emotional distress medical attention resulting from the emotional duress psychiatric or psychological treatment and the loss of income if any
B: holding that the plaintiff had placed her medical condition in controversy by alleging that she had suffered severe mental or emotional distress
C: holding that plaintiffs outsized emotional reaction to car accident was not allowed as basis for emotional distress damages where reasonable person would have experienced some anger or been upset but would not have suffered severe distress
D: holding emotional distress suffered must be severe and not trivial
B.