With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". on appeal that Ms. Cabrera is registered with the DEA, the record is unclear whether the other requirements of section 3502.1 were met in this case. 4 Our decision does not preclude real parties in interest from requesting additional discovery if the pain management provisions of postoperative orders turn out to be “boilerplate,” and real parties in interest show the relevance of such other provisions as the return of patients to the orthopedic floor and standard vital signs checks to petitioner’s custom and practice of preparing postoperative orders. 5 At oral argument, real parties in interest argued for the first time that physician assistant orders do not fall within the physician-patient privilege,, citing Duronslet v. Kamps (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 717, 736 [137 Cal.Rptr.3d 756] (<HOLDING>). We consider this argument forfeited because

A: holding that treating physicians testimony was properly discounted when it was inconsistent with physicians own treatment reports and the record as a whole and appeared to be based on patients subjective complaints
B: holding that emtala does not allow private suits against physicians
C: holding physicianpatient privilege does not apply to nurses or other medical staff working under physicians supervision or acting as physicians agent
D: holding that emtala does not provide a private cause of action against individual physicians or against physicians medical corporations
C.