With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". v. Jeckovich, 103 A.D.2d 632, 481 N.Y.S.2d 545, 546-47 (4th Dep't 1984) (reversing the trial court’s grant of remittitur on a jury award of $500,000 for a plaintiff who sustained minor physical injuries and an “acute psychotic breakdown” resulting from a car accident) (citing McCahill v. New York Transp. Co., 201 N.Y. 221, 94 N.E. 616 (1911)); cf. Steinhauser v. Hertz Corp., 421 F.2d 1169, 1172 (2d Cir.1970) (Friendly, /.) (reversing a verdict in defendant's favor on the ground that the plaintiff’s theory of the case — that a defendant is liable for the emergence of schizophrenia resulting from the emotional trauma suffered by a passenger in a minor car accident caused by the defendant— is legally valid); Williams v. Bright, 230 A.D.2d 548, 658 N.Y.S.2d 910, 912 n. 2 (1st Dep’t 1997) (<HOLDING>). 6 . Stampf testified that she attended

A: holding that treatment for symptoms of undiagnosed multiple sclerosis activated the preexisting condition exclusion and stating that there is no requirement that a diagnosis definite or otherwise of the preexisting condition must be made during the preexisting condition period
B: recognizing that the eggshell skull doctrine is traditionally applied to a plaintiffs preexisting physical condition mental illness or psychological disability internal citations omitted
C: holding that emotional distress requires a showing of either physical symptoms or mental illness
D: holding that rule 35 does not permit sweeping examinations of a party who has not affirmatively put into issue his own mental or physical condition by asserting his mental or physical condition either in support of or in defense of a claim and that mere relevance to the case is insufficient
B.