With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". have led to easonable care and diligence should have ascertained, the nature and cause of his injury, or 2) at death, whichever first occurs”) (emphasis added); Harig v. Johns-Manville Products Corp., 284 Md. 70, 83, 394 A.2d 299 (1978) (concluding that, “in situations involving the latent development of disease, a plaintiffs cause of action accrues when he ascertains, or through the exercise of reasonable care and diligence, should have ascertained, the nature and cause of his injury”) (emphasis added); Benjamin, 162 Md.App. at 197, 873 A.2d 463 (suggesting that Trimper “indicates that the knowledge that a reasonable investigation would disclose is probably not sufficient if it would only show injury”); Young v. Medlantic Laboratory P’ship, 125 Md.App. 299, 305-06, 312, 725 A.2d 572 (<HOLDING>) and concluding “that the trial court erred in

A: recognizing the cause of action
B: recognizing cause of action
C: recognizing that under the discovery rule a cause of action accrues thereby triggering the limitations period when the patient discovers or should have discovered that he or she has a cause of action
D: holding that in an environmental contamination ease a cause of action accrues  when a plaintiff knows or reasonably should know of his or her cause of action and of the identity of a party or parties who may be responsible for the injury
C.