With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". where there is probable cause to believe the driver has violated a criminal vehicular operation law. These cases do not, however, create a general exception to Minnesota's physician-patient privilege statute such that there is no conflict of laws between Minnesota and Wisconsin in the present case. Schmerber and Oevering balance the state's prosecutorial interest and the need to quickly gather blood-alcohol evidence against the driver’s right to privacy. They say nothing regarding the entirely distinct policy of the physician-patient privilege statute, which is to promote unfettered communications between patient and doctor to facilitate proper medical diagnosis and treatment. State v. Staat, 291 Minn. 394, 397, 192 N.W.2d 192, 195-96 (1971). Despite the fact that the theory behind t (<HOLDING>); Ford Motor Co. v. Leggat, 904 S.W.2d 643, 647

A: holding iowa privilege law precluding admission applicable where automobile accident occurred in illinois but blood sample was drawn for treatment purposes in iowa but admitting the evidence nonetheless because no special reason existed why the illinois policy favoring admission should not have been given effect
B: holding that illinois public policy did not require the application of illinois law to an illinois accident involving only indiana residents insured in indiana
C: holding there was no personal jurisdiction over nonresident guarantor of equipment lease although payments were made to illinois bank the guaranty was accepted in illinois and it provided that it would be gov erned by illinois law
D: holding that illinois law had most significant relationship to communications between defendant appraiser and association of realtors during a disciplinary hearing held in illinois and finding a special reason why forum policy favoring admission should give way to realtor associations strict confidentiality policy
D.