Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
deadline waives its right to challenge the report on appeal. Neason v. Buckner, 352 S.W.3d 254, 259 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2011, no pet.); Troeger, 274 S.W.3d at 108. In that event, we do not consider the merits of the defendant’s objections. See Neason, 352 S.W.3d. at 259; Troeger, 274 S.W.3d at 108. The Hospital complains that the expert reports addressed only the doctors’ conduct and did not name the Hospital; however, the Hospital concedes-that Nguyen pleaded that the Hospital was vicariously hable for the conduct d on a potentially frivolous vicarious liability claim would encourage claimants to artfully plead vicarious liability claims against hospital, defendants to avoid dismissal-of those defendants from the case. See Loaisiga v. Cerda, 379 S.W.3d 248, 261 (Tex.2012) . The Hospital would have this court add to the
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the district court should consider the totality of the circumstances in determining whether the patentee acted in subjective bad faith and should consider whether circumstantial evidence would support an inference of bad faith
B. holding expert may consider and assume validity of matters set out in pleadings in the suit absent a showing that thepleadings are groundless or in bad faith or rebutted by evidence in the record
C. holding that where the plaintiff is pro se the court must consider as evidence in his opposition to summary judgment all of plaintiffs contentions offered in motions and pleadings where such contentions are based on personal knowledge and set forth facts that would be admissible in evidence and where plaintiff attested under penalty of perjury that the contents of the motions or pleadings are true and correct
D. holding that for a defendant to recoup attorneys fees under  706k of title vii a court must find that the plaintiff litigated his or her claim beyond the point where it became frivolous unreasonable or groundless or where plaintiff acted in bad faith
E. holding expert testimony is not required as a per se rule  in bad faith actions
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.