With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". The errors all occurred within a three-year period before the incident in question. Viewing this evidence in the light most favorable to Shari, we conclude the jury could reasonably infer that Walgreen had a serious problem in this regard, knew it had the problem, but did not take adequate steps to correct it. What made Walgreen’s conduct particularly egregious, however, was its failure to warn Shari or her doctors of the serious adverse side effects associated with Paxil and the abrupt discontinuance of the drug. Walgreen learned of the error twelve days before Shari’s second fall. However, contrary to pharmacy standards and its own policy manual, Walgreen neglected to warn Shari or her family of such adverse side effects. See Burke v. Bean, 363 S.W.2d 366, 368 (Tex.Civ.App.1962) (<HOLDING>). Viewing the evidence in the light most

A: holding that a failure to warn was not a policy judgment
B: holding merely that the evidence was sufficient to support the award of attorneys fees
C: holding a court may not award punitive damages
D: holding that failure to warn plaintiff of error in filling her prescription was sufficient evidence of conscious indifference to plaintiffs rights to support an award for punitive damages
D.