Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
926 (1943) (“It becomes the duty of the board to make full and exhaustive inquiry, and to that end the board may not only examine any competent witness at the conclusion of his direct and cross examination upon all matters material and relevant to any issue, but it may also subpoena and examine other competent witnesses.”) This Court has permitted the Commission to consider authoritative, trustworthy, and rehable medical guides; however, those guides must be introduced into evidence by witnesses able to testify that the guide is the recognized authority. Pomerinke v. Excel Trucking Transp., Inc., 124 Idaho 301, 306, 859 P.2d 337, 342 (1993). The Commission is not entitled to use medical guides to assess claimants and formulate its own opinions regarding a claimant’s health. See id. . We conclude that the referee improperly
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the admission of expert testimony was prejudicial where the testimony was pervasive
B. holding that expert medical testimony was not necessary to establish negligence where surgeon left a needle in the patients body but stating that proof of proximate cause requires some expert testimony in medical malpractice cases
C. holding expert testimony provided no evidence as to causation since testimony was not based upon reasonable medical probability
D. holding the commission properly considered a medical guide because it was used merely to support expert testimony and not to assess and formulate its own impairment rating for claimant
E. holding that because the tendered expert witness was a licensed psychologist and not a medical doctor he was not qualified to state an expert medical opinion regarding the cause of johns injury
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.