With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". harm was, by itself, the injury. Applying the AMLA, the Alabama Supreme Court disagreed, stating, “Under current ■ Alabama caselaw, mere exposure to a hazardous substance resulting in no present manifestation of physical injury is not actionable under the AMLA where the exposure has increased only minimally the exposed person’s chance of developing a serious physical disease and that person has suffered only mental anguish.” Houston Cty., 961 So.2d at 810-11. As such, any plaintiffs who had not actually suffered an infection or other adverse effects from the exposure had “not suffered a legal injury.” Id. at 811. Thus, Houston County makes clear that claims governed by the AMLA require a showing of an actual physical injury. See also Crutcher v. Williams, 12 So.3d 631, 648 (Ala. 2008) (<HOLDING>). The next question then is the extent to which

A: holding in the medical malpractice context that a plaintiff must prove that the alleged negligence more likely than not caused the victims death
B: holding that under rico plaintiff must prove an injury because of violation of statute
C: holding that under the amla a plaintiff must prove that a delay in treatment proximately and probably caused actual injury to the plaintiff
D: holding that the creditor must prove the elements of actual fraud
C.