Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
circumstances of each case. Dominguez, 149 F.R.D. at 168; Goldwater, 136 F.R.D. at 340. 1. Witness’ Area of Expertise, Education, and Training. Although it is uneontroverted that Dr. Golnick is a physician who specializes in neurology, the record is devoid of evidence that Dr. Golnick is a preeminent expert in his field or that he possesses knowledge or training unique from other neurologists. Even if the record did reflect that Dr. Golnick possessed unique expertise or training in the field of neurology, courts have been slow to award exorbitant fees based on an expert’s special abilities. See Anthony, 106 F.R.D. at 464 (denying fee request of $420.00 per hour by physician who was “one of only a handful of physicians” with expertise to testify on subject); Dominguez, 149 F.R.D. at 168 ; cf. Grendel’s Den, Inc. v. Larkin, 749 F.2d
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding physician employed by public medical school and removed as director of transplant program was not deprived of property interest when his salary was not decreased
B. holding injured employee who asked his employer for medical assistance and employer refused and employee then went to physician of his own choice employee could recover medical benefits
C. holding that physician who specialized in taste and smell taught medical school classes and conducted research in his area of expertise was not entitled to earn premium fee
D. holding physician entitled to recover attorneys fees actually paid by malpractice insurer because physician was personally liable in the first instance
E. holding physician in action based on illegal cavity search to standard of a reasonable physician
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.