With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". for expert testimony in medical malpractice cases under Indiana law, as discussed in detail infra, the Mussers should have known that expert testimony was “crucial” to their case, and “likely to be contested;” in these circumstances, there is not a substantial justification for failing to disclose experts. Dura Automotive Sys. of Indiana, Inc. v. CTS Corp., 285 F.3d 609, 616 (7th Cir.2002) (affirming the exclusion of expert testimony). The district court did not abuse its discretion in finding harm to Gentiva. It was the district court’s opinion that, in this particular case, Gentiva was denied the opportunity to question the witnesses in their expert capacity. This choice is not outside the range of reasonable options available to the district court. Salgado, 150 F.3d at 741-42 (<HOLDING>). By the time the district court ruled on the

A: holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the incomplete and late submission of expert reports was not harmless
B: holding that trial court did not abuse its discretion by determining expert witness was qualified to testify
C: holding juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in admitting expert testimony
D: holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion rejecting these human dechallengerechallenge reports
A.