With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". multiple instructions, “we think it more appropriate to examine the adequacy of the charge that was given”). That is, the bad result instruction sufficiently informed the jury that it could believe that Chesser simply had a bad result with the PEG tube or that the bad result could have been caused by his pre-existing conditions and instructed the jury that a bad result alone would not support a negligence finding against Ap-pellees. See id. at 430 (explaining that unavoidable accident instruction sufficiently informed jury of and submitted defendant’s sole proximate cause inferential rebuttal defense that fatal auto accident was not caused by defendant’s negligence but by presence of cattle on the roadway); Williams v. Viswanathan, 64 S.W.3d 624, 628-29 (Tex.App-Amarillo 2001, no pet.) (<HOLDING>). Looking to the adequacy of the charge given,

A: holding that evidence existed to support bad result instruction when doctor admitted that patients care worsened under his care but denied that he was negligent
B: holding that doctor who was contacted by patients treating physician to discuss treatment alternatives does not owe duty of care to patient whose case is discussed such as would support medical malpractice claim
C: holding nurses were not entitled to official immunity where it was alleged that they failed to follow orders for a patients care given to them by a doctor
D: holding that although compliance with administrative safety regulations did not establish due care it was evidence of due care
A.