With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". District explained in a unanimous en banc opinion: [T]he more prudent approach is to allow trial judges, in their discretion, to qualify psychologists and neuropsychologists to testify on causation as any other expert would be qualified to testify in his or her area of expertise. A psychologist’s or neuropsychologist’s competency to give an opinion will be subject only to the limitations imposed by 90.702, Florida Statutes. Broward County Sch. Bd. v. Cruz, 761 So.2d 388, 395 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000), approved, 800 So.2d 213 (Fla.2001). I agree with Cruz and would adopt this approach. As noted by Cruz, the majority of courts in this country have rejected the bright-line rule used in DeSerio. See, e.g., Huntoon v. T.C.I. Cablevision of Colorado, Inc., 969 P.2d 681, 689 (Colo.1998) (en banc) (<HOLDING>); Hutchison v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co., 514

A: holding that violation of state law was not a per se constitutional violation
B: holding that neuropsychologists are not per se unqualified to speak on the causation of organic brain injury
C: holding that constructive amendments which are per se reversible under harmless error analysis are also per se reversible under plain error analysis
D: holding a juveniles request to speak to a probation officer is not a per se invocation of fifth amendment rights
B.