Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
v. Sea Ray Boats, Inc., 830 P.2d 236, 240 (Utah 1992). In addition, the plaintiff must experience either physical or mental symptoms as a result of the incident. Hansen v. Mountain Fuel Supply Co., 858 P.2d 970, 974-75 (Utah 1993). The undisputed facts demonstrate that James and Cheryl Lawson did not actually witness the event in which their daughter was hit. Because they did not even see the foul ball, they cannot claim that the accident caused emotional distress from fear of injury; the speed of the accident actually prevented any apprehension or anticipation of harm. Furthermore, even if James and Cheryl Lawson had anticipated the harm, they do not proffer any evidence indicating that they experienced severe mental illness as a result of the incident. See Hansen, 858 P.2d at 975 . Thus, as a matter of law, the Lawsons do not
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding in a fcra case that plaintiffs may not rely on mere  conclusory statements  rather they must  sufficiently articulate  true demonstrable emotional distress  including the factual context in which the emotional distress arose evidence corroborating the testimony of the plaintiff the nexus between the conduct of the defendant and the emotional distress the degree of such mental distress mitigating circumstances if any physical injuries suffered due to the emotional distress medical attention resulting from the emotional duress psychiatric or psychological treatment and the loss of income if any
B. holding that plaintiffs outsized emotional reaction to car accident was not allowed as basis for emotional distress damages where reasonable person would have experienced some anger or been upset but would not have suffered severe distress
C. holding emotional distress suffered must be severe and not trivial
D. holding that the plaintiff had placed her medical condition in controversy by alleging that she had suffered severe mental or emotional distress
E. holding that a tort claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress is distinct from a claim for emotional distress damages under the employment discrimination statute
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.