Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
explained, this ease has never been framed to solidify a foundation to support such necessary, broad-scale assessment. We do observe that there is a weakness in PHS and its amici’s particular emphasis on the DOC’s responsibility to provide a safe work environment, since it seems apparent that the Department may rely upon the prison medical companies with which its contracts as an integral component of the agency’s institutional safety planning. The argument for imposition of a duty carries more force relative to the contractual obligations of the prison healthcare company itself, rather than the independent obligations of its individual staff members arising out of physician-patient relationships. Cf. Guy, 501 Pa. at 58-63, 459 A.2d at 750-53 (opinion of the Court, in relevant part) . See generally Brief for Amicus Pa. Med. Soc’y
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the attorneyclient privilege protects a clients identity only in limited circumstances where disclosure would convey the substance of a confidential professional communication
B. holding that there is no right to a meaningful attorneyclient relationship
C. holding that plaintiff was not the prevailing party for purposes of awarding attorneys fees even where the court retained jurisdiction to enforce the terms of a settlement agreement because there was insufficient judicial sanctioning of the alteration of the parties legal relationship
D. recognizing that a defendant physicians own practice was at least some evidence of the standard of care and concluding that the case was properly submitted to the jury notwithstanding the plaintiffs failure to call an independent expert on the standard of care
E. recognizing limited thirdparty rights in the context of an attorneyclient professional relationship where the plaintiff was the intended beneficiary of the prevailing standard of care
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.