Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
the standard of care. See Hyman & Armstrong, P.S.C. v. Gunderson, 279 S.W.3d 93, 114(Ky. 2008) (concluding that, although information about a drug in the package insert and the Physicians’ Desk Reference “is relevant and useful information regarding the prescribing physician’s standard of care, it is not the sole determinant of the standard of care”); Richardson v. Miller, 44 S.W.3d 1, 16-17 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000) (observing that such materials are “intended to comply with the FDA’s regulations, to provide advertising and promotional material, and to limit the manufacturer’s liability” and cannot, by themselves, be considered prima facie evidence of the prescribing physician’s standard of care; Morlino v. Medical Center of Ocean County, 684 A.2d 944, 949 (N. J. Super. App. Div. 1996) ; Craft v. Peebles, 893 P.2d 138, 151 (Haw.
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that where a treating doctor is called to give an expert opinion on the standard of care that doctor is properly labeled an expert witness and must be disclosed to the other party along with other experts
B. recognizing that a defendant physicians own practice was at least some evidence of the standard of care and concluding that the case was properly submitted to the jury notwithstanding the plaintiffs failure to call an independent expert on the standard of care
C. holding expert testimony is ordinarily required in legal malpractice cases to establish the standard of care
D. holding that a manufacturers insert in and of itself may not establish the relevant standard of care in a medical negligence action but may be considered by the fact finder along with expert testimony to define the standard of care
E. holding that package inserts and parallel physicians desk reference information may be considered by the jury along with expert testimony to determine the appropriate standard of care
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.