With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Dr. Chen, purport to give opinions about causation or toxicology. He admits that the pharmacokinetics of metam sodium, the symptoms of poisoning, the mechanisms of injury, the biomarkers of injury and the diagnosis of injury are matters beyond his expertise. (Schaible Dep. 30-31, 34.) He is not a medical doctor nor expert in asthma or RADS. (Schaible Dep. 34.) Schaible thus admits that he is not qualified to give opinions about metam sodium causing RADS or any of Plaintiffs symptoms. (Schaible Dep. 156, 180, 189-90.) Instead, Schaible’s opinions are limited to the opinions that Plaintiffs reported symptoms are “consistent with” possible consequences of metam sodium exposure. (Schaible Dep. 87-90.) See also Minner v. American Mortgage & Guar. Co., 791 A.2d 826, 865-66 (Del.Super.2000) (<HOLDING>). The obvious defect of this opinion, in any

A: holding that causation is an essential element in failure to warn claim
B: holding that industrial hygienist was unqualified to opine as to causation
C: holding two days is sufficient to prove causation
D: holding that by itself three and onehalf months was insufficient to prove causation
B.