Instructions: In this task, you will be shown a prompt from a judicial decision and multiple holding statements derived from citations following text in a legal decision. Holdings represent the governing legal rule when the law is applied to a particular set of facts. There are five answer choices for each citing text. The correct answer is the holding statement that corresponds to the citing text. The four incorrect answers are other holding statements. You should find the correct option. There is a <HOLDING> token in the position of the citing text prompt where the holding statement was extracted.
Input: lied, he was allowed to undergo the procedure. Young was an adult and was told not to drive. The warning not to drive, especially where it is reinforced by having the patient sign a paper affirming he or she will not drive, is proportionate to the danger. After the procedure, it was learned that Young intended to drive. Nurse Diane Brown repeatedly asked Young not to drive. She made phone calls to try and get him a ride. When no one showed up to drive him, Brown offered to wait with Young at the Center until the medication wore off. Still, Young went on and drove his car to another medical appointment. Brown went well beyond what could be reasonably required. Short of tackling and forcibly restraining Young, which would not be legally permissible, there was nothing m S.W.3d 489 (2002) (<HOLDING>). A review of our case law reveals that in the
Holding statements: (A) holding expert testimony is ordinarily required in legal malpractice cases to establish the standard of care (B) holding that where a treating doctor is called to give an expert opinion on the standard of care that doctor is properly labeled an expert witness and must be disclosed to the other party along with other experts (C) holding expert testimony not required to defeat summary judgment in medical malpractice suit because defendant doctors admissions were sufficient to establish the standard of care (D) holding that where patients expert witness did not testify to what degree of skill and learning ordinarily possessed by doctors in good standing in little rock or similar locales was patient failed to establish applicable standard of care thereby warranting directed verdict in favor of appellant doctor (E) 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
Output:
(D)