With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". their illnesses to the alleged contamination until studies and investigations began revealing such causation in 2007. Thus, to apply the statute of repose in this case would bar all potential claims from the over 500,000 marines and their families affected. Indeed, it would bar the overwhelming majority of claims involving any cancer. Several states have already found similar statutes of repose unconstitutional under their state right to open courts when they are used to bar suits before a plaintiff could have discovered their illness or injury. These states include Arizona, Ohio, Indiana, Utah, Rhode Island, Florida, New Hampshire, as well as Alabama, whose open courts provision is virtually identical to North Carolina’s. See, e.g., Halbe v. Weinberg, 717 N.E.2d 876 (Ind.1999) (<HOLDING>); Brennaman v. R.M.I. Co., 70 Ohio St.3d 460,

A: holding that a twoyear statute of limitations applies to negligence claims under texas law
B: holding amendment to statute of limitations was a procedural amendment to be applied retroactively in a medical malpractice case
C: holding that whether in tort or contract all malpractice claims are covered by the same statute of limitations
D: holding twoyear medical malpractice statute of limitations unconstitutional as applied to plaintiffs who are unable to discover their claims within two years
D.