With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". marks omitted)). Other courts have rejected the proposition that a plaintiff may recover medical monitoring costs in the absence of a current physical injury. In Paz v. Brush Engineered Materials, 949 So .2d 1 (Miss. 2007) (en banc), the court held that current Mississippi law does not “recognize a claim for medical monitoring allowing a plaintiff to recover medical monitoring costs for mere exposure to a harmful substance without proof of current physical or emotional injury from that exposure.” Id. at 5-6. The United States Supreme Court has examined the common law for the allowance of recovery for negligently caused exposure by a plaintiff who has yet to suffer from a disease. [Metro-North Commuter R.R. Co. v.]Buckley, 521 U.S. [424,] 432 [117 S.Ct. 2113, 138 L.Ed.2d 560 (1997) ] (<HOLDING>). The Court found that with few exceptions,

A: holding venue provision of federal employers liability act nonwaivable
B: holding that employers knowledge of employees injury followed by the employers failure to provide the necessary medical services sufficient to impose liability upon the employer for medical services selected by the employee
C: holding that decedent employees common law negligence claim against employer was not barred when disease was not compensable under the wca or the occupational disease act
D: holding that an employee could not recover damages and medical monitoring costs under the federal employers liability act unless or until he manifested symptoms of a disease
D.