With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". that permits us to review the constitutionality of the provision in question. Accordingly, even though Ohms did not challenge the constitutionality of seetion 78-3-31 below, we nonetheless address this argument on appeal. Our analysis of the constitutionality of section 78-3-31 begins with the premise that “statutes stitutionality of a given statute is made, the said statute must be examined to determine if it is unconstitutional, either on its face or as applied. See, e.g., In re Criminal Investigation, 7th Dist. Court No. CS-1, 754 P.2d 633, 640 (Utah 1988); Wells v. Children’s Aid Soc’y of Utah, 681 P.2d 199, 204 (Utah 1984); Ellis v. Social Servs. Dep’t of Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 615 P.2d 1250, 1255 (Utah 1980). The statute at issue in th 116 (Utah 1970) (<HOLDING>); accord State v. Green, 793 P.2d 912, 916

A: holding that a general acute care hospital may not delegate its duty to provide physicians for emergency room care because the law imposes a duty on hospital to provide that health care
B: recognizing right of this court to regulate and discipline members of the bar
C: holding that utah supreme court cannot delegate its duty to discipline an erring attorney to others
D: recognizing that an attorney has a duty of loyalty to his client
C.