Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
the jury’s joint enterprise finding. Subsection (a)’s vicarious liability language therefore cannot apply to Hospital based on a joint enterprise theory of vicarious liability. Second, also as set forth above, the instructions and definitions given to the jury in connection with the negligence question, question 2, submitted to the jury only the issue of LMS’s and Hospital’s direct liability. The jury did not make any other fact finding that would support the imposition of vicarious liability on LMS for Hospital’s breach of its direct duties to Chesser. See, e.g., St. Joseph Hosp., 94 S.W.3d at 537-38 (discussing various theories of vicarious liability); accord Obstetrical & Gynecological Assocs., P.A. v. McCoy, 283 S.W.3d 96, 105 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2009, pet. denied) . Thus, absent some fact finding that would
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that investigative report regarding potential premises liability claim was protected work product
B. holding that expert report failed to implicate defendant in context of plaintiffs direct liability theory and thus trial court had no discretion to grant extension but only to dismiss
C. 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
D. recognizing that purely vicarious liability claim against entity as opposed to direct liability claim did not require expert report in addition to report filed regarding doctor employed by entity
E. holding that because the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding the expert report adequate as to the vicarious liability claim against the hospital based on the actions of the doctors plaintiffs suit against the hospital including her claim that the hospital was vicariously hable for the actions of its nurses could proceed
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.