Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
the experts must share the same board certification as the defendant physician to testify as to the standard of care at issue. In the present case, it is uncontested that neither expert shares the board certification with the defendant physician, Dr. Nix. Dr. Zenilman and Dr. Vaccaro are not board certified family physicians; Dr. Zenilman is a board certified infectious disease physician (internal medicine with a subspecialty board certification in infectious diseases.) Dr. Vaccaro is a board certified orthopedic neurosurgeon. Since it is uncontested that the experts do not share the same board certification as Dr. Nix, they must fall under exception (e) to qualify under the MCARE Act to provide standard of care testimony. See, Anderson v. McAfoos, 618 Pa. 478, n.5 (Pa. 2012). At this stage in the proceedings, the court
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. recognizing subsection e as the sole exception to the boardcertification requirement
B. recognizing exception
C. recognizing the rule and the exception but holding facts did not support claim to exception
D. recognizing the searchincidenttoarrest exception to the warrant requirement
E. recognizing such an exception
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.