With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". at 684-85 (Lewis, J. dissenting). The plaintiffs cite one state trial court decision rejecting the damages caps of Fla. Stat. § 766.118 as unconstitutional on the ground that Article I, § 26(a) guarantees claimants the right to collect the stated percentages of “all of the damages that a jury could potentially award.” Cavanaugh v. Cardiology Assoc. of Orlando, P.A., No. 06-CA-3814, Div. 40, 2007 WL 5844414 (Fla. 9th Jud. Cir.Ct. Oct. 30, 2007). Although the court has considered the trial court’s ruling in Cavanaugh, it respectfully declines to follow it, as the court’s analysis focuses on an isolated phrase in the provision rather than on the language of the section as a whole. The court also notes it is not bound by the Cavanaugh decision. See Bravo v. United States, 577 F.3d at 1326 (<HOLDING>). Absent authority from the Florida Supreme

A: holding that when there is no ruling by the states highest court it is the duty of the federal court to determine as best it can what the highest court of the state would decide
B: holding that when making such a guess under erie r r co v tompkins 304 us 64 58 sct 817 82 led 1188 1938 a federal court is bound by an intermediate state appellate court decision unless convinced by other persuasive data that the highest court of the state would decide otherwise
C: holding federal courts are bound to follow intermediate state appellate court decisions unless there is persuasive evidence that the states highest court would rule otherwise
D: holding that when applying state law this court follows the decision of the highest state court or in the absence of such a decision and any indication that the highest court would rule differently the decisions of the states intermediate courts
C.