With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". He claims she refused to order an X-ray and infers she lied to him about whether there was a doctor available to see him in the clinic. He also claims she failed to follow the “health service police [sic] and procedure manual for strains and sprains.” He acknowledges Nurse Armfield wrapped his shoulder in an ace bandage and gave him a heating pad to take back to his cell. Taking all of Hafner’s assertions as true, there is nothing in Nurse Armfield’s treatment that amounts to deliberate indifference to Hafner’s serious medical needs. First, because Hafner lied about the manner in which he had been injured, he contributed to Nurse Armfield’s decision not to immediately refer him to a doctor. Accord, Mid-Westem Electric, Inc. v. DeWild Grant Reckert & Assoc., 500 N.W.2d 250 (S.D.1993) (<HOLDING>). Second, Hafner has presented no evidence that

A: holding invalid an instruction regarding intervening cause of act of plaintiff as a defense to strict liability in a case when the former contributory negligence may have been a defense
B: holding that erisa does not preempt professional malpractice claims
C: holding breach of fiduciary duty claim is essentially a negligence or professional malpractice claim
D: recognizing contributory negligence as a defense to professional malpractice claims
D.