With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". In Morgan v. Foretich, 846 F.2d 941 (4th Cir.1988), retired Associate Justice Lewis F. Powell Jr., sitting by designation on the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, concurred in part and dissented in part, stating: [T]here is no evidence in the record that [the girl’s] frame of mind was comparable to a patient seeking treatment.... [T]here is no evidence that Dr. Harrison ever explained to [the child] that his questions and relationship with her arose, at least in part, from a desire to treat her.... Absent a finding that [the child] made her statements believing they would be used by Dr. Harrison to help her, I am reluctant to rest my decision on the cases relied on by the court. 846 F.2d at 951-52. See Oldsen v. People, 732 P.2d 1132, 1135-36 (Colo.1986)(<HOLDING>). The Supreme Court of Colorado in Oldsen v.

A: holding statements inadmissible under colo r evid 8034  which was identical to the federal rule  because there was no evidence that the fiveyearold child was capable of recognizing at the time the challenged statements were made the need to provide accurate information for purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment within the meaning of fedrevid 8034
B: holding a social worker treating the child was permitted to testify to statements the child made about the abuse including the victims identification of the perpetrator because the statements were necessary to the treatment of ensuring the continued safety of the child
C: holding that statements made by a doctor to a patient are not admissible under fedrevid 8034 because the rule does not except statements by the person providing medical care
D: holding that federal rule of evidence 8034 the hearsay exception for statements made for medical diagnosis or treatment does not apply to statements made by doctors
A.