With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". evidence establishes that Katherine informed the Hospital nursing staff that she was in severe pain and that the nursing staff neither informed Dr. Kauffman of this pain nor documented it in Katherine’s records. Additionally, Dr. Olden testified that “[p]atients should be pain-free when they leave the endoscopy suite” and that “a physician has a right to trust his or her nurses to inform them of that.” Appellants’ App. p. 163-64. From this evidence, a reasonable trier of fact could infer that a nursing staff meeting the requisite standard of care would not fail to report that a patient is in severe pain. Such an inference does not involve the “sophisticated subtleties” of medicine that necessitate expert testimony. See Payne v. Marion Gen. Hosp., 549 N.E.2d 1043 (Ind.Ct.App.1990) (<HOLDING>). Therefore, we conclude that there exists • a

A: holding that a question of fact existed regarding whether the hospital held the doctor out as its agent if the hospital provided the doctor without explicitly informing the patient that the doctor was not its employee
B: holding no expert testimony needed where doctor without seeing patient for several hours deemed patient incompetent and terminally ill and issued a do not resuscitate order over the telephone without patients informed consent
C: holding that where doctor never had contact with patient nor reviewed patients records no relationship existed so as to trigger a duty
D: holding that a psychiatrist had no duty to detain a patient who killed himself and injured his wife because the patient was outside of the scope of the facilitys range of observation and control even when the psychiatrist agreed to treat the patient the patient had suicidal tendencies and the psychologist took the patient into custody but then later permitted him to leave
B.