With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". The trial court sustained defendant’s objections to this testimony based on the state of the law as it existed at that time, which was that a psychologist, who is not a medical doctor, is not qualified to render an opinion as to the cause of brain damage. Executive Car & Truck Leasing, Inc. v. DeSerio, 468 So.2d 1027 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985). Tomlian, 782 So.2d at 906. The district court reversed the jury verdict for defendants and remanded the case for a new trial, noting that in Broward County School Board v. Cruz, 761 So.2d 388 (Fla. 4th DCA), approved, other grounds, 800 So.2d 213 (Fla.2001), the Fourth District had receded from its prior holding in DeSerio, which it now considered to be contrary to the greater weight of authority. See Cruz, 761 So.2d at 394 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) (<HOLDING>). The district court also rejected the argument

A: recognizing that the florida legislature had after deserio broadly defined the practice of psychology in section 4900034 florida statutes 1997 and that the decision in deserio was contrary to the current weight of authority
B: holding that psychologists are not precluded from testifying as to the cause of brain injury based in part upon the district courts acknowledgment that after deserio the florida legislature had broadly defined the practice of psychology in section 4900034 florida statutes 1997
C: recognizing that publication in the laws of florida or the florida statutes gives all citizens constructive notice of the consequences of their actions
D: holding defendant had requisite contacts under section 481932 florida statutes where it solicited consulting and other services from a florida corporation in which a substantial amount of the services sought by defendant were performed in florida
B.