With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". and implicates the special knowledge and training of an engineer. But, whether section 150.002 applies in the context of a workplace-safety claim against a professional engineering firm is not determined by the type of work the employee performed for the engineering firm. Rather, the proper analysis is whether the claims for damages arise out of the engineering firm’s provision of professional engineering services. In this case, the plaintiffs do not claim that Jacobs Engineering negligently designed or constructed the anechoic chambers or other specialized structures, or that it chose improper materials for their construction. The plaintiffs instead allege that Jacobs Engineering failed to provi 2010 WL 2026037, at *6-9 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] May 20, 2010, no pet.) (mem. op.) (<HOLDING>). We therefore hold that the trial court did

A: holding that the plaintiffs causes of action were preempted because their claims were premised on the existence of an erisa plan
B: holding that the plaintiffs claims for assault and battery were patently without merit since the officers actions under the circumstances were justified
C: holding that plaintiffs whose claims were based on failure to warn refinery employee of danger of asbestos exposure were required to provide certificate of merit when claims were alleged against defendant in its capacity as designer and general contractor of refinery
D: holding that plaintiff was required to provide a certificate of merit when all of its allegations against engineering firm with whom it contracted to supervise oil well fracturing treatment were based on firms provision of those services
C.