With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". period at issue.” 5 So.3d at 1198. Cutler’s complaint, on the other hand, alleges that the tumor/lesion culminated in a legal injury on February 11, 2015, despite “an adverse beginning of the growth process within the four years following June 28, 2005.” (Emphasis added.) Based on this averment, the trial court concluded that, regardless of the date of the discovery of any injury, the statute of repose would have begun to run at the latest by June 28, 2009, and would have expired at the latest by June 28,2013. We agree. It is well settled that in medical-malpractice actions the legal injury occurs at the time of the negligent act or omission, regardless of whether the injury is or could be discovered within the statutory period. See, e.g., Ex parte Hodge, 153 So.3d 734 (Ala.2014)(<HOLDING>); Ex parte Sonnier, 707 So.2d 635

A: holding that patient suffered actionable legal injury and period of repose began to run when physician left hemostat clamp in patients body regardless of when or to what extent the complications from the negligent act would be discovered
B: holding that limitations on an insureds claims of negligent procurement negligent misrepresentation and violations of the insurance code and deceptive trade practices act began to run when insured purchased life insurance coverage and the discovery rule did not apply because the nature of the injury was not inherently undiscoverable
C: holding that statute of limitations began to run on patients medicalmalpractice action against surgeon after first operation during which surgeon failed to locate hernia even though full extent of patients injury was not known until second operation
D: holding that limitations began to run when the defendant began wrongfully discharging water containing harmful chemicals on the plaintiffs land and not on the date when the extent of the damages to the land were fully ascertainable
A.