Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
suffered from an anxiety disorder that might disappear in one to two years, but might never improve. Consequently, she required unpredictable breaks of indeterminate time to recover from a condition she exhibited at work previously. Emerson worked at a job which required prompt, accurate handling of emergencies such as gas leaks and downed power lines that could pose significant danger to the public. Although Emerson argues that she is unlikely to suffer a panic attack at work, she has already suffered two. By its very nature, the consultant job could be stressful, and Emerson would be in contact with a supervisor who caused her further stress. This evidence is enough for us to find that Emerson posed a direct threat in the consultant position. See, e.g., Bekker, 229 F.3d at 671-72 ; Borgialli, 235 F.3d at 1294 (determining that
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a question of fact existed regarding whether the hospital held the doctor out as its agent if the hospital provided the doctor without explicitly informing the patient that the doctor was not its employee
B. holding that a doctor who was traveling to the hospital simply to be on call and not in response to a page was in the course of business even though she was not required to be in any particular location while on call
C. holding that doctor who was suspected of drinking on the job posed a direct threat although she had not injured any patients
D. holding that plaintiff did not receive adequate process during posttermination hearing because she was not given opportunity to crossexamine witnesses accusing her of drinking on the job and coming to school inebriated
E. holding that where doctor never had contact with patient nor reviewed patients records no relationship existed so as to trigger a duty
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.