With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". panel of the Superior Court, two years later, found a prima facie showing sufficient to undergird recovery when a plaintiff merely established (1) an asbestos-related condition; (2) shortness of breath; and (3) a causal connection between the two. McCauley v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp., 715 A.2d 1125 (Pa.Super.1998). As noted above, an integral part of the analysis of this case is whether Appellants, in the first instance, even suffer from a compensable injury under Simmons and its progeny. To that end, we agree with the OISR below that, under either the Taylor/While standard, or the McCauley three-part structure, Appellants instantly have clearly demonstrated a compensable injury. See Summers, 886 A.2d at 248 (OISR) (“I express no opinion on wh .Cmwlth. 445, 583 A.2d 512 (1990) (<HOLDING>); Dep’t of Pub. Welfare v. Hickey, 136

A: holding that a physicians negligence need only be a proximate cause not the proximate cause of plaintiffs injury
B: holding that negligence must be the proximate cause of injury
C: holding proximate cause almost always a question solely for the jury
D: holding that questions of proximate cause are within the exclusive domain for the jury and may only be removed when reasonable minds cannot differ
D.