With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". on other grounds by Hampton v. Big Boy Steel Erection, 121 S.W.3d 220 (Mo. banc 2003)). Our research has revealed no case providing that a claimant must make repeated requests for treatment or provide the employer with notice multiple times that the claimant needs further treatment. Nor does the employer direct us to any such authority. Thus, when the claimant notified the employer of his ongoing back pain, and again when he notified the employer of his unsuccessful attempt to obtain treatment, the employer was placed on notice that the claimant required additional medical aid. The employer failed to provide it. The claimant was then free to select his own physicians to render medical aid, and the employer is responsible for the cost of that treatment. See Martin, 220 S.W.3d at 847 (<HOLDING>). The claimant sought and was denied treatment

A: holding that a claimant establishes a prima facie case for compensable medical treatment where a qualified physician indicates treatment was necessary for a workrelated condition
B: holding that once employer refused or neglected to provide claimant with reasonable and necessary medical aid she was free to procure such treatment on her own
C: holding that a tortfeasor is required to pay the expenses of over treatment or unnecessary medical treatment unless such treatment was incurred by the victim in bad faith 
D: holding that where employee gave notice to employer of injury and employer told employee that nothing could be done for him through workmans compensation employer had breached statute and was liable for medical treatment which was reasonable and necessary to restore employee to maximum usefulness
B.