Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
explicitly stated: “Physicians providing medical services within this hospital are not employees of University Hospital. Each physician is an independent contractor.”). ' To the contrary, where patients were given no indication that the emergency-room physicians were independent contractors, courts have held that the question of apparent authority was at least a question for the jury—the trier of fact. See, e.g., Jennison v. Providence St. Vincent Med. Ctr., 174 Or.App. 219, 234, 25 P.3d 358, 367 (2001) (finding it was reasonable for the patient to assume -that the radiologist was a hospital employee where nowhere on the consent form did it indicate that radiologists were independent contractors); Abdul-Majeed v. Emory Univ. Hosp., 213 Ga.App. 421, 423, 445 S.E.2d 270, 272 (1994) . Here, HKH not only took affirmative action
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that no physicianpatient relationship between doctor who gave informal opinion over telephone at request of treating physician and minor patient whose case was discussed and thus doctor did not owe duty of care to patient
B. holding that the trial court had erred by excluding the expert testimony of a doctor
C. holding evidence of apparent authority insufficient where patient sought services of particular doctor rather than services of hospital generally
D. holding that a question of fact existed regarding whether the hospital held the doctor out as its agent if the hospital provided the doctor without explicitly informing the patient that the doctor was not its employee
E. holding erisa did not apply when doctor was not employee of the medical association of the state of alabama
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.