Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
of care, or proximate cause. The only expert testimony in the record concerning the standards of care applicable to the settling defendants, any breach of those standards of care, or any proximate cause is, as pointed out by Chesser, wholly conclusory and constitutes no evidence. See, e.g., Coastal Transp. Co., 136 S.W.3d at 232; Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc. v. Havner, 953 S.W.2d 706, 711-12 (Tex.1997), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1119, 118 S.Ct. 1799, 140 L.Ed.2d 939 (1998). For example, Dr. Stephen Koch, one of Chesser’s experts whose testimony Appel-lees point to as providing evidence of the settling defendants’ standard of care, breach, and causation, simply testified: Q. You render opinions as an — as an expert witness in this case that Dr. Dad-dyo — Adedokun was neg 820 (Tex.2009) ; Coastal Transp. Co., 136 S.W.3d at 232;
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding evidence legally insufficient
B. holding evidence legally insufficient to support causation because patels opinions were conelusory and provided no evidence
C. holding evidence legally sufficient
D. holding evidence was legally insufficient to support conviction for violation of sex offender registration requirement
E. holding evidence legally insufficient to support causation because dr beyler may be qualified in fire research but his testimony in this case lacks objective evidencebased support for its conclusions
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.