Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
79 N.E.2d at 423. For all of these reasons, and under our deferential standard of review of the determinations of administrative agencies, we affirm the Board’s award of worker’s compensation benefits to Payne for the subsequent shoulder injury resulting from his fall on April 18, 2009. Affirmed. FRIEDLANDER, J., and RILEY, J., concur. 1 . Citing Muncie Ind. Transit Authority v. Smith, 743 N.E.2d 1214, 1217 (Ind.Ct.App.2001), Moorehead claims that Payne was required to establish the causal connection between the two injuries by expert medical evidence. Appellant's Br. at 3. But the holding in that case, requiring medical evidence to establish a causal relationship between the employment and the injury, is limited to injuries not caused by “a sudden and unexpected event.” Id. at 1217
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding expert testimony necessary to establish the existence of a causal relationship between a particular toxin and its effect on the human body
B. holding that to show a causal connection the plaintiff must demonstrate a relationship between the misconduct and the plaintiffs injury
C. holding that the citys decision was arbitrary and capricious when it was contrary to the evidence and based solely on speculation arising from prior unrelated acts
D. holding that the boards decision was contrary to law because it was based solely on smiths testimony and is not supported by medical evidence which shows a causal relationship between smiths employment and his carpal tunnel syndrome
E. holding that an aljs own medical analysis which is contrary to medical evidence is invalid
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.