Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
actions are not discretionary and even define what a ministerial action is, the key to whether official immunity is applicable is whether the defendant has proven that they are a public employee and that the allegedly tortious acts were discretionary. 5 . The Plaintiffs assert that Aumua failed to follow Grain Valley Policies and the "Emergency Guidelines for Schools and Childcare Facilities” promulgated by the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services. 6 . We also note that a wealth of case law has established that government employees providing medical treatment in non-emergency situations are not entitled to official immunity regardless of whether any rules, policies, orders, or regulations were violated. See Thomas v. Brandt, 325 S.W.3d 481, 484 (Mo.App. E.D.2010) ; State ex rel. Eli Lilly & Co. v. Gaertner,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding nurses were not entitled to official immunity where it was alleged that they failed to follow orders for a patients care given to them by a doctor
B. holding that defendants were entitled to official immunity and not addressing the merits
C. holding that emergency medical technicians and paramedics were not entitled to official immunity for their actions related to the treatment of patients in nonemergency situations
D. holding that because a city inspector was not entitled to official immunity the city was not entitled to vicarious official immunity
E. holding that patients who were denied medical treatment on nonemergency basis had standing to bring antitrust action against medical center
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.