Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
on statutory grounds "to avoid constitutional issues.”)). The United States has represented that Jane Doe will testify at trial, and the Confrontation Clause will not bar admission of the statements, even if they are testimonial, so long as Wilson has an opportunity to cross-examine Jane Doe regarding them. The Court has no reason to believe that the United States will not be true to that representation. So long as the United States remains true to that representation and Jane Doe testifies, there is no constitutional reason to prohibit admission of the statements. It may be that Doe’s statements to Dr. Ornelas, which were part of a medical examination, were "made for purposes of diagnosis and treatment, rather than to inculpate” Chaco. Moses v. Payne, 555 F.3d 742, 755 (9th Cir.2009). On the record before it, however, the Court
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the state courts conclusion that statements to dr appleton were nontestimonial because they were made for purposes of diagnosis and treatment rather than to inculpate was not an unreasonable application of the legal principle established by crawford 
B. holding that statements in medical records given for the primary purpose of medical diagnosis and treatment are nontestimonial
C. holding that driving records were nontestimonial
D. holding that federal rule of evidence 8034 the hearsay exception for statements made for medical diagnosis or treatment does not apply to statements made by doctors
E. holding statements inadmissible under colo r evid 8034  which was identical to the federal rule  because there was no evidence that the fiveyearold child was capable of recognizing at the time the challenged statements were made the need to provide accurate information for purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment within the meaning of fedrevid 8034
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.