With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". the physician who had prescribed the plaintiff a vaccine for shingles “testified at deposition that she was aware of the adverse reactions associated with ZOSTAVAX.” Id. at 151. The manufacturer’s alleged failure to adequately disclose the risks of the drug, therefore, was not the proximate cause of the plaintiffs injuries. Id. at 151-52. Similarly, in Banker v. Hoehn, “there [was] no question” that the treating physician “was fully cognizant of the potential of hypertrophic scarring” from the use of an argon laser to treat a facial birthmark. 718 N.Y.S.2d at 441. That knowledge was an “intervening event” in the causal chain which “reliev[ed] the manufacturer of any liability to a patient under the failure to warn theory.” Id. at 440-41. See also Figueroa, 254 F.Supp.2d at 370 (<HOLDING>); Glucksman, 553 N.Y.S.2d at 726-27 (holding

A: holding that the physician who included the cost of an intrauterine contraceptive device in the fee for his insertion of the device was a seller under the uniform commercial code
B: holding that no proximate causation existed where a treating physician is well aware of the risks of a medical device independent of any warning by the manufacturer
C: holding that where a treating physicians opinion is contradicted by a consulting physician the alj must explain on the record the reasons for rejecting the opinion of the treating physician
D: holding that vicarious liability claim against union based on medical malpractice of treating physician is not preempted by erisa
B.