With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". case has considered the precise issue posed by this case, courts in other states have recognized that liability may be imposed in the absence of a doctor-patient relationship. In Green, 910 F.2d at 296, for example, the Fifth Circuit found, between an employee and the doctor conducting an annual physical, a limited doctor-patient relationship that was sufficient to give rise to a duty of care in conducting the examination and reporting its results. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has similarly recognized an obligation to report abnormal results obtained during a preemployment physical examination, despite the absence of a doctor-patient relationship. Daly v. United States, 946 F.2d 1467, 1468 (9th Cir.1991) (interpreting Washington law); see also Betesh, 400 F.Supp. at 245-47 (<HOLDING>); Meena v. Wilburn, 603 So.2d 866, 870

A: holding that in the absence of a product malfunction a plaintiff cannot establish that a defendant breached any duty owed
B: recognizing duty of care owed by business invitor to invitee
C: holding as a matter of maryland law that employerretained radiologists who observed abnormalities owed a duty of care and breached it by failing to notify the examinee
D: holding that broker owed no fiduciary duty to client as a matter of law
C.