With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Shepard v. Redford Cmty. Hosp., 151 Mich.App. 242, 245, 390 N.W.2d 239, 241 (1986); see also Welke, 375 N.W.2d at 405. There is an special relationship between the VA and Mr. Brown, a patient. The disputed question is whether Mrs. Brown and the two Brown children were foreseeable victims of any failure on the part of the VA to diagnose Mr. Brown with Leishmaniasis. A third party is a foreseeable victim “where [a] physician determines or, pursuant to the standard of care, should determine that his patient poses a serious threat of danger to a third person.” Welke, 375 N.W.2d at 406; see also Duvall, 362 N.W.2d at 279 (“[I]t is foreseeable that a doctor’s failure to diagnose or properly treat an epileptic condition may create a risk of harm to a third party.”); Davis, 335 N.W.2d at 489 (<HOLDING>). We must therefore decide whether the VA

A: holding that psychiatrist has duty to third parties to exercise due care in treatment and release of committed patients
B: holding that when a psychiatrist determines or  should determine that a patient poses a serious threat of danger to a third party the psychiatrist has a duty of reasonable care to that party
C: holding that a psychiatrist owed a duty to a person foreseeably injured by his patient
D: holding that psychiatrist had duty to protect individuals endangered by his epileptic patient
B.