Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
Judge. In this medical malpractice action, Raymond Santa Lucia appeals from the cost judgment rendered after a jury verdict in his favor. He first contends the trial court abused its discretion in excluding from the cost judgment fees for Lawrence Forman and Dr. Hartley Mellish, the experts who provided testimony on the specific economic losses he incurred as a result of his injuries. The appellees properly concede Santa Lucia is entitled to recover these fees to the extent he can establish the fees were reasonable and necessary. See Payne v. Spier, 562 So.2d 440, 441 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990) . Santa Lucia also argues the trial court erred
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding the expert witnesses were protected by witness immunity to ensure expert objectivity
B. holding expert testimony was based on reasonable medical probability where there were multiple possible causes and expert testified that one cause was more probable than the others
C. holding that the plaintiff was entitled to recover reasonable expert fees for a rehabilitation expert and economist
D. recognizing that the need for the expert was so great that the decision to preclude the expert effectively amounted to dismissal of case
E. holding that an expert that had provided consulting services to the defendant relating to the litigation was not precluded from serving as an expert for the plaintiff
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.