the elements of inherent undiscoverability and objective verifiability “balance the conflicting policies in statutes of limitations: the benefits of precluding stale or spurious claims versus the risks of precluding meritorious claims that happen to fall outside an arbitrarily set period.” S.V. v. R.V., 933 S.W.2d at 6; see Altai, 918 S.W.2d at 457. However, within the confines of the federal and Texas Constitutions, the Legislature is free to determine that the discovery rule should not apply in certain cases, and it has done so. See, e.g., Morrison v. Chan, 699 S.W.2d 205, 208 (Tex.1985) (“[T]he Legislature’s intent in passing Art. 4590i, § 10.01, was to abolish the discovery rule in cases governed by the Medical Liability Act”); cf. Neagle v. Nelson, 685 S.W.2d 11, 12 (Tex.1985) (<HOLDING>). In the case before us today, clear
holding that former article 4590i section 1001 violated the open courts provision when it abridged the right to sue before the claimant had a reasonable opportunity to discover the wrong holding that the delivery of an eeoc decision to the former attorney of a claimant did not constitute notice to the claimant holding that when a person entrusts effects to another and the police discover those effects in the others home by means of a search that violates article i section 9 the search also violates the entrustors rights under article i section 9 recognizing that where two parties claim  to be the owners of the same debt or chose in action the party having the superior title by virtue of his earlier assignment may maintain an action for money had and received against the wrong claimant if the wrong claimant receives the money holding that because the due process clause in the federal constitution is applicable to the states under the fourteenth amendment the right is also guaranteed to defendants pursuant to the identical provision in article i section 5 of the hawaii constitution