Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
Injuries” as a defense and presented expert witnesses who asserted: (1) the collision was one of low impact; and (2) that there was no me (1989) (finding the trial court abused its discretion in excluding the testimony of a neuropsychologist that a motorist’s behavioral changes were caused by either a combination of post-traumatic stress disorder and chronic pain syndrome or an organic affective disorder secondary to a mild brain injury — the appellate court stating the dispositive issue was whether the testimony would supply specialized knowledge that would assist the jury in determining a fact in issue). Finally, we find exclusion of the evidence was not harmless error as there was no equivalent testimony presented to this effect. Cf. Bernard v. Lott, 666 So.2d 702 (La.Ct.App.1995) . Accordingly, we hold the trial court erred in
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that because the warden and medical treatment director lacked medical expertise they cannot be liable for the medical staffs diagnostic decision not to refer plaintiff to a doctor to treat his shoulder injury
B. holding the exclusion of a neuropsychologists opinion regarding whether the plaintiff suffered a brain injury on the basis she was not a medical doctor was harmless error because additional medical experts testified about how the results of the neuropsychologists testing supported a finding of a brain injury
C. 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
D. holding that experts medical opinion constituted no evidence because it was based upon speculation and surmise rather than reasonable medical probability
E. holding that erroneous admission of hearsay medical notes was harmless error when doctor testified and was subject to crossexamination
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.