Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
145, 149 (Ind.Ct.App.2005). Further, the proposition that a surgeon cannot delegate a duty to remove foreign objects from a patient has been recognized. See, e.g., Miller v. Ryan, 706 N.E.2d 244, 250 (Ind.Ct.App.1999), trans. denied; Indiana Pattern Jury Instruction No. 23.03. Numerous opinions have held that a surgeon is not entitled to summary judgment under such res ipsa cases. See, e.g., Wright, 622 N.E.2d at 172 (affirming the denial of the motions for summary judgment of the surgeon and hospital); Burke v. Capello, 520 N.E.2d 439, 442 (Ind.1988) (reversing the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to a surgeon who left a piece of cement in the patient), overruled on other grounds by Vergara By Vergara v. Doan, 593 N.E.2d 185, 186-187 (Ind.1992); Balfour, 830 N.E.2d at 150 . However, our research reveals no Indiana
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that at summary judgment hearing trial court erred by considering theory not raised in the pleadings
B. holding that a grant of summary judgment in favor of one party creates a final judgment allowing appellate review of denial of opposing partys summary judgment motion
C. holding that the trial court correctly entered summary judgment in favor of defendant and denied plaintiffs motion for summary judgment where plaintiff failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that defendant breached its duty to act in good faith
D. holding that the trial court erred when it entered summary judgment in favor of the health care provider
E. holding that party may not appeal summary judgment in favor of opponent when grounds opposing summary judgment asserted on appeal were not raised before trial court
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.