With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". the court acknowledged: [I]t is extraordinary for dischargeability litigation that hinges on a debtor’s medical condition to actually hinge on medical testimony. This is because all dis-chargeability litigation involves real persons who are debtors under the Bankruptcy Code, and cannot afford to hire medical experts to testify to the effect of their disease on their disease on their earning capacity. When medical testimony is offered by the debtor it is to lay skepticism to rest, and in this writer’s experience the medical condition of any debtor has never been the subject of dueling experts in § 523(a)(8) litigation. 219 B.R. 665, 669 (Bankr.W.D.N.Y.1998). Yet despite this awareness, courts often hold that the debtor has failed to sustain his burden of proof. See Lowe, 321 B.R. at 860 (<HOLDING>); Folsom, 315 B.R. at 165 (holding that the

A: holding petitioner has the burden of proof under the strickland test
B: holding that threatening employee to mind her own business investigating her videotaping her without her permission and forcing her to take polygraph could not be considered adverse employment actions because they had no effect on conditions of employment
C: holding that the plaintiff failed to raise an issue of fact regarding her retaliation claim because she failed to offer any evidence of a causal relationship between her involvement in protected activity and the adverse employment action
D: holding without any substantive evidence to corroborate the debtors testimony regarding her medical conditions the court must find that the debtor has failed to sustain her burden under the second prong of the brunner test
D.