While working in a pesticide plant, a man was accidentally exposed to a toxin known to cause genetic defects in the children of exposed parents if the exposure levels exceed a certain level. Generally, the level of exposure can be determined by blood and fatty tissue testing. The man's doctor ran those tests, misinterpreted the results, and informed the man that the level of toxins in his body appeared to be too low to pose a risk to any fetus. A year later, a baby girl was born to the man and his wife with precisely the type of birth defect known to be caused by the toxin. When the man sues the doctor, what will be the critical issue in the case? Question 15 options: a) Can the doctor be held liable for an injury (i.e., exposure to toxins) that she did not cause? b) Are money damages too speculative? c) Did the doctor act as a doctor having the knowledge, skill, and judgment ordinarily possessed by members of the profession in good standing would have acted? d) Did the doctor act as a typical doctor with the knowledge, skill and judgment of doctors in the community