With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". to the conflict of laws question. In the present case, the Minnesota and Wisconsin physician-patient privilege rules directly conflict. Minnesota’s physician-patient privilege has its genesis in Minn.Stat. § 595.02, subd. 1(d) (2002): A licensed physician * * * shall not, without the consent of the patient, be allowed to disclose any information or any opinion based thereon which the professional acquired in attending the patient in a professional capacity, and which was necessary to enable the professional to act in that capacity. A blood sample taken for treatment purposes is information acquired by the physician that is necessary to enable him to act in a professional capacity and is included in the privilege. See State v. Stoat, 291 Minn. 394, 400, 192 N.W.2d 192, 197 (1971) (<HOLDING>). Thus, under Minnesota’s physician-patient

A: recognizing superior court must conduct an  on the record examination to determine defendants voluntariness and knowledge
B: holding that a relator did not have direct knowledge of an alleged fraud when the knowledge was obtained in part by review of publiclyfiled payroll records
C: holding that the statutes broad language encompasses physical articles verbal communications and any other knowledge obtained by the physician through his observation and examination
D: holding that the knowledge requisite to knowing violation of a statute is factual knowledge as distinguished from knowledge of the law
C.