Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
and would not have progressed to cardiopulmonary arrest. Although Mr. Smith’s clinical condition had a mortality of about twenty percent prior to the arrest, the above-discussed failures of Dr. Bolton, Dr. Russell, Dr. Suominen, PA Dizney, McElravy, Hammonds, and Gill probably led to the arrest and the sequelae that probably ensued and in reasonable probability led to his progressive weakness, increasing renal dysfunction, and multi-system organ failure and his death. These statements, all contained within the four corners of Dr. Halkos’s report, sufficiently link Dr. Halkos’s causation opinions to the facts and adequately describe the chain of events allegedly leading to Mr. Smith’s death. See Patel v. Williams, 237 S.W.3d 901, 905-06 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2007, no pet.) . The trial court acted within its discretion
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that causation section of expert medical report was not eonclusory when read in context of entire report
B. holding expert report requirement fulfilled in claim against nurse by providing expert report of nurse as to standard of care and expert report of medical doctor as to causation
C. holding that earlier events set the stage for what followed and that factual disputes regarding those events were material
D. holding that it is generally sufficient that an indictment set forth the offense in the words of the statute itself
E. holding expert report sufficiently set forth causation when it presented a chain of events beginning with a contraindicated prescription and ending with the patients death
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.