With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". that he does not explain how his experience or training, which they claim is overwhelmingly in the field of forensic psychology, provides him the necessary training or experience with the omissions alleged here: involving the diagnosis, care, and treatment of an adult diagnosed with ADD and prescribed Adderall, Adderall addiction, or Adderall psychosis. However, the Clinic and Dr. Davisson fail to read the report and Dr. Helge’s curriculum vitae as a whole. Dr. Helge’s curriculum vitae shows that he is a practicing psychologist and that he has treated patients who are taking Adderall prescribed by a doctor. As such, he meets the requirements of section 74.402 as to the Clinic’s principal, Dr. Davisson, at least. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem.Code Ann. § 74.402; see Barber, 303 S.W.3d at 793-94 (<HOLDING>). Dr. Helge’s Articulation of Standard of Care

A: holding no jurisdiction when trial court granted extension even though appellants argued expert report was so woefully deficient on necessary elements so as to constitute no report and report was missing experts curriculum vitae
B: holding that court must not view any one part of expert report or curriculum vitae in isolation
C: holding courts may not consider any single provision taken in isolation as controlling but must consider all provisions in context of entire instrument
D: 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
B.