Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
Dr. Callahan to present evidence of successful lumbar fusion surgeries involving pedicle screws performed by him and possibly to present his own calculation of how many pedicle screws he had properly placed in the past. Thus, the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, and potential undue delay substantially outweighed the limited legitimate probative value of the other acts evidence. Several courts have excluded evidence similar to that which Plaintiffs sought to introduce. See Lai v. Sagle, 373 Md. 306, 818 A.2d 237, 247 (2003) (noting that “[t]he fact of prior litigation has little, if any, relevance to whether [defendant] violated the applicable standard of care in the immediate case.”); Laughridge v. Moss, 163 Ga.App. 427, 294 S.E.2d 672, 674 (1982) ; Cerniglia v. French, 816 So.2d 319, 322-25
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that evidence of prior similar acts was not proof of medical malpractice or whether the doctor lacked the proper degree of knowledge or skill
B. holding that trial court did not err in refusing instruction that would have directed jurors not to consider specific acts of negligence in determining medical centers liability
C. holding prior bad acts evidence is admissible where there is an articulation or identification of the consequential fact to which the proffered evidence of other acts is directed
D. holding that the trial court did not err in disallowing evidence of alleged previous act of medical malpractice against defendant noting that the general rule in a suit for negligence is that evidence of similar acts or omissions on other and different occasions is not admissible
E. holding that trial court did not err
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.