I'm usually perplexed on whether it is the better usage of "case history". The following sentences shown three different way to handle this phrase:
a) In discussing the case's history, you assert that the hospital "remained neutral." [→]
b) How he flees to the police as a man seeking asylum and how the doors of his addled subconscious are finally opened by the patient gnomes in the Palais de Justice, make up the bulk of M. Simenon's frightening case-history. Readers who are upset by Gallic frankness should back away from that case-history at all costs. [→]
c) Presented as the case history of a standard homosexual, this novel adds little that is new to a groaning shelf. Mr. Vidal's approach is coldly clinical: there is no real attempt to involve the reader's emotions. [→]
Anybody know which is the better choice: "case history", "case's history" or "case-history"? Or are there differences in meaning?