An issue in Parker's action against Daves for causing Parker's back injury was whether Parker's condition had resulted principally from a similar occurrence five years before, with which Daves had no connection. Parker called Watts, his treating physician, who offered to testify that when she saw Parker after the latest occurrence, Parker told her that before the accident he had been working full time, without pain or limitation of motion, in a job that involved lifting heavy boxes. Watts's testimony should be
admitted, because it is a statement of Parker's then existing physical condition.  admitted, because it is a statement made for purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment.  excluded, because it is hearsay, not within any exception.  excluded, because Parker is available as a witness
Question: An issue in Parker's action against Daves for causing Parker's back injury was whether Parker's condition had resulted principally from a similar occurrence five years before, with which Daves had no connection. Parker called Watts, his treating physician, who offered to testify that when she saw Parker after the latest occurrence, Parker told her that before the accident he had been working full time, without pain or limitation of motion, in a job that involved lifting heavy boxes. Watts's testimony should be
A. admitted, because it is a statement of Parker's then existing physical condition. 
B. admitted, because it is a statement made for purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment. 
C. excluded, because it is hearsay, not within any exception. 
D. excluded, because Parker is available as a witness
Answer: