With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". was medically negligent in treating Jacob and that this negligence legally caused Jacob’s injuries, absent a jury finding that Providence’s failure to maintain Jacob’s records was excused. However, the trial court’s failure to apply a rebuttable presumption of causation did not impact the ultimate outcome of this case. The trial court did shift the burden of proof to Providence on the issue of duty and breach and the jury found that Providence had affirmatively established, by a preponderance of the evidence, that it had not been negligent in providing care to Jacob. Because the jury found that Providence was not negligent, the jury never reached the issue of causation. Therefore, the trial court’s error was harmless. See Zoerb v. Chugach Elec. Ass’n, 798 P.2d 1258, 1262 (Alaska 1990) (<HOLDING>); Baker v. Werner, 654 P.2d 263, 267 n. 6

A: holding that even if the trial court had erred in denying the defendants motion for a directed verdict on punitive damages the error was harmless because the jury found in favor of the defendant and never reached the punitive damages claims
B: holding a court may not award punitive damages
C: holding without discussion of the punitive damages issue that judgment for embezzlement which included actual and punitive damages was nondischargeable
D: holding defendant did not preserve argument regarding element of negligence in tort claim when only causation and punitive damages were raised in directed verdict motion
A.