With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 702; Thomas v. Alford, 230 5.W.3d 853, 857 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2007, no pet.). The party offering the witness as an expert on causation must establish that the witness is qualified to testify under rule 702. Mem’l Hermann Healthcare Sys. v. Burrell, 230 S.W.3d 755, 762-63 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2007, no pet.) (deciding that a doctor was qualified to opine about causation because his report demonstrated direct experience with treating decubitus ulcers, which was the condition at issue). To be so qualified, “an expert must have knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education regarding the specific issue before the court that would qualify the expert to give an opinion on that particular subject.” Thomas, 230 S.W.3d at 857, 860 (citing Broders, 924 S.W.2d at 153) (<HOLDING>). Further, to justify the submission of an

A: holding that because the doctor who submitted an expert report did not demonstrate knowledge of cancer treatment he was not qualified to offer an opinion that an earlier diagnosis could have produced a better outcome for the plaintiff
B: recognizing that the expert was particularly qualified to give his opinion
C: holding that the plaintiffs experts were not qualified to offer a medical opinion as to the cause of death because they are not physicians nor otherwise properly qualified to offer a medical opinion
D: holding that because the tendered expert witness was a licensed psychologist and not a medical doctor he was not qualified to state an expert medical opinion regarding the cause of johns injury
A.