With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". the [trial judge] must treat the motion as a motion for summary judgment.” Dual, Inc. v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 383 Md. 151, 161, 857 A.2d 1095, 1100 (2004). If a trial judge has been presented with facts or allegations outside of those in the complaint and has not specifically excluded them from consideration, we have acted on the presumption that the additional information was considered by the trial judge. See 120 W. Fayette St., LLLP v. Mayor & City Council of Balt., 407 Md. 253, 263, 964 A.2d 662, 667 (2009) (concluding that “[b]y relying on material outside of the pleadings when granting the City’s motion to dismiss, the Circuit Court, in effect, converted the motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment”); Smith v. Danielczyk, 400 Md. 98, 105, 928 A.2d 795, 799 (2007) (<HOLDING>); Okwa v. Harper, 360 Md. 161, 177, 757 A.2d

A: holding that physicians were specifically excluded from the ocspa but hospitals were not so they must abide by the ocspa
B: holding that extraneous documents were not part of contract with voters created by voter approval of bond proposition
C: holding that it was appropriate for the district court to refer to the documents attached to the motion to dismiss since the documents were referred to in the complaint
D: holding that because the record does not indicate that the extraneous documents or averments were excluded by the court  we must assume that they were considered
D.