With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Zipp v. Seattle Sch. Dist. No. 1, 36 Wn. App. 598, 601, 676 P.2d 538, review denied, 101 Wn.2d 1023 (1984). Indeed, if there is no evidence of causation beyond a possibility, it is error to submit the case to the jury. Zipp, 36 Wn. App. at 601. ¶22 Here, all Potter has established is the possibility that she was exposed to chemicals in her newly remodeled office that made her sick. She points to the Material Safety Data Sheets as circumstantial evidence that particular chemicals were present in her office. At oral argument here, counsel for Potter cited Anderson v. Akzo Nobel Coatings, Inc., 172 Wn.2d 593, 260 P.3d 857 (2011), where the court found admissible a physician’s opinion on causation that was based in part on Material Safety Data Sheets. See Anderson, 172 Wn.2d at 604, 611-12 (<HOLDING>). But Dr. Keifer, Potter’s treating physician

A: holding that the frye test of general acceptance in the scientific community was superceded by the federal rules
B: holding frye test was not implicated by proposed testimony of employees expert that cause of birth defect of her son was exposure to toxic solvents
C: holding that the admission of expert testimony was prejudicial where the testimony was pervasive
D: holding that the frye test and the federal rules can coexist
B.