With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". and fairness to litigants.” Busch v. Biggs, 264 N.J.Super. 385, 396, 624 A.2d 1017 (App.Div.1993). The Cogdell Court explained that in the present day litigation explosion, the judicial system must “conserve judicial resources; judicial energy is not inexhaustible or endlessly renewable. Thus, a rule that can control litigational extravagance and reduce piecemeal litigation is a necessity.” Id., 116 N.J. at 24, 560 A.2d 1169. We are cognizant that application of the doctrine is limited in that, “as in the ease of all other preclusionary doctrines ... the party whose claim is being sought to be barred must have had a fair and reasonable opportunity to have fully litigated that claim in the original action.” Cafferata v. Peyser, 251 N.J.Super. 256, 261, 597 A.2d 1101 (App.Div.1991) (<HOLDING>). Moreover, the doctrine does not bar related

A: holding that a patients settlement of a prior action brought against him by doctors for payment of a bill did not bar medical malpractice action against doctors
B: holding that doctors do not have to accept patients
C: holding that review of medical history during an examination assisted doctors medical conclusions
D: holding expert testimony not required to defeat summary judgment in medical malpractice suit because defendant doctors admissions were sufficient to establish the standard of care
A.