harm was, by itself, the injury. Applying the AMLA, the Alabama Supreme Court disagreed, stating, “Under current ■ Alabama caselaw, mere exposure to a hazardous substance resulting in no present manifestation of physical injury is not actionable under the AMLA where the exposure has increased only minimally the exposed person’s chance of developing a serious physical disease and that person has suffered only mental anguish.” Houston Cty., 961 So.2d at 810-11. As such, any plaintiffs who had not actually suffered an infection or other adverse effects from the exposure had “not suffered a legal injury.” Id. at 811. Thus, Houston County makes clear that claims governed by the AMLA require a showing of an actual physical injury. See also Crutcher v. Williams, 12 So.3d 631, 648 (Ala. 2008) (<HOLDING>). The next question then is the extent to which
holding in the medical malpractice context that a plaintiff must prove that the alleged negligence more likely than not caused the victims death holding that the creditor must prove the elements of actual fraud holding that under rico plaintiff must prove an injury because of violation of statute holding that principles of tort damages on which  42 usc  1983 is grounded require plaintiff to prove actual injury holding that under the amla a plaintiff must prove that a delay in treatment proximately and probably caused actual injury to the plaintiff