With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". standard of care relating to the need to administer anti-coagulation medication following surgery. Because Dr. Goldman’s report and curriculum vitae demonstrate his knowledge and experience treating patients in circumstances similar to those that form the basis of the allegations in this claim, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding Dr. Goldman qualified. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem.Code Ann. § 74.401(a)(2); Rittger, 332 S.W.3d at 558 (neurologist qualified to provide expert opinion on standard of care or breach thereof by emergency room physician where prospective medical expert had practical knowledge of what is usually and customarily done by practitioners under similar circumstances); see also Barber v. Mercer, 303 S.W.3d 786, 795 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2009, no pet.) (<HOLDING>); Blan, 7 S.W.3d at 746 (condition involved in

A: holding article 1802 claims only survive where the conduct alleged of is based on tortious or negligent conduct different from the conduct covered by other specific labor laws involved
B: holding that anesthesiologist who had participated in numerous similar surgeries and had observed proper padding and positioning technique as part of surgical team was qualified to provide expert report as to standard of care applicable to general surgeon
C: holding that where the conduct forming the basis of the plaintiffs breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing claim is the same conduct forming the basis for the breach of contract claim the claims merge and there is no separate cause of action for breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing
D: holding anesthesiologist qualified to opine on conduct of surgeon in health care liability claim because anesthesiologists report tied his education training and experience to the specific alleged breach  the positioning and padding of a patient during surgery not the conduct of the actual operating techniques
D.