With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". medical records related to the injuries alleged in the petition, which are physical, not psychiatric. [Mr. Patton’s] psychiatric records held by Dr. Rao are not relevant to those injuries and are not discoverable.” A reviewing court affirms the decision of the trial court on any basis that is correct, even if the reviewing court might have ruled on a different basis. Kubley v. Brooks, 141 S.W.3d 21, 27 n. 5 (Mo. banc 2004); Fix v. Fix, 847 S.W.2d 762, 766 (Mo. banc 1993); Edgar v. Fitzpatrick, 377 S.W.2d 314, 318 (Mo. banc 1964). I believe, as is admitted in the majority opinion, that the discovery request was too broad. An overly broad request alone would have been a valid basis for denying this writ of mandamus. See State ex rel. Jones v. Syler, 936 S.W.2d 805, 808 (Mo. banc 1997) (<HOLDING>). BNSF did not request medical records, reports

A: holding a sentence is not limited to period of incarceration
B: holding a writ was appropriate when the authorization was not limited as to time and not limited to specific healthcare providers
C: recognizing only specific limited forms of pleadings
D: holding that injury to business or property was not limited to commercial interests
B.