With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". report contained information based on interviews with appellant, her daughters, and others. Because Dr. DeYoub did not testify, it is impossible to determine from the report which of Dr. DeYoub’s conclusions were based on his direct observations of appellant, and which were based on the statements of other persons. Relatedly, it is impossible to determine which conclusions relied upon by the court were based on hearsay, or even double-hearsay, let alone determine if those statements might still be admissible under one of the exceptions to the hearsay rule, such as, for example, that found in Rule 803(4) of the Arkansas Rules of Evidence. Therefore, it was error for the circuit court to admit Dr. DeYoub’s report. See New Empire Ins. Co. v. Taylor, 235 Ark 758, 352 S.W.2d 4 (1962) (<HOLDING>). Second, the trial judge relied upon Dr.

A: holding the report of doctor who was not present to testify and whose deposition had not been taken was properly excluded in action by insured against insurer on accident policy
B: holding if a deposition is taken for discovery only  not for use at trial the deposition is not a stage of trial for which the defendant must be present
C: holding insurer did not have to cover insured for a breach of contract because it was not an accident
D: holding that injured tort claimant properly brought action against insurer prior to filing action against insured tortfeasor where coverage dispute did not depend on any fact or circumstance pertaining to the accident or the injuries suffered by the claimant
A.