Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): compensable injuries.” Similarly, in Michael J. v. Los Angeles County Dep’t of Adoptions, 201 Cal. App. 3d 859, 874-875 (1988), the California Court of Appeal stated that “an adoption agency cannot be made the guarantor of an infant’s future good health and should not be liable for mere negligence in providing information regarding the health of a prospective adoptee.” See Richard P. v. Vista Del Mar Child Care Serv., 106 Cal. App. 3d 860, 866-867 (1980) (court stated that “no cause of action for negligence should be recognized based on considerations of public policy”); Foster v. Bass, 575 So. 2d 967, 981 (Miss. 1990) (court refused to recognize tort of negligence in adoption context because result not foreseeable). See also Juman v. Louise Wise Servs., 211 A.D.2d 446, 447 (N.Y. 1995) (<HOLDING>). Other courts, however, have held that, apart 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing cause of action for wrongful discharge (B) recognizing cause of action for wrongful death (C) recognizing cause of action (D) holding that pecuniary damages are essential to a fraudulent misrepresentation cause of action (E) recognizing wrongful adoption cause of action grounded in fraud and fraudulent misrepresentation
Output (English): holding that pecuniary damages are essential to a fraudulent misrepresentation cause of action