Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
magnified in the prison context. Jolly, 923 F.Supp. at 949. Thus, Kassen held that where prison physicians exercise governmental discretion, they are entitled to official immunity. Id. at 949-50; Kassen, 887 S.W.2d at 10-11. On the other hand, the court concluded that where state-employed physicians exercise purely medical discretion (as in the diagnosis and treatment of patients), the purpose of official immunity no longer applies. See Kassen, 887 S.W.2d at 10-11. A physician’s exercise of purely medical discretion thus does not warrant official immunity. In 2003, the Texas Legislature superseded Kassen by extending official immunity to all employees acting within the scope of their employment. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 101.106 (West 2013); see Franka, 332 S.W.3d at 381-85 . Prior to its abrogation, several commentators
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. recognizing abrogation
B. recognizing statutory abrogation of rule of liberality in workers compensation claims
C. recognizing abrogation of kassen
D. recognizing the abrogation of both dunett and bundles
E. recognizing abrogation of fought v unum life ins co of am 379 f3d 997 1005 10th cir2004
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.