What was the judge's ruling regarding Nelson and whether the defendants practiced medicine without a license?

• A. Nelson was supervised by a surgeon; not practicing medicine based on case evidence; insufficient to show license violation.
• B. Nelson practiced medicine without a license.
• C. The case found all defendants guilty of practicing without a license.
• D. The court did not consider supervision in its ruling.

Answer: (A)

The key idea is how supervision affects whether someone is considered to be practicing medicine without a license. If a person works under the oversight of a licensed surgeon, the activity may not count as independent medical practice. In this case, the judge found that Nelson was supervised by a surgeon, and the evidence did not show that he practiced medicine on his own or without a license. Because the supervision means there isn’t sufficient proof of license violation, the ruling aligns with not finding that Nelson practiced medicine without a license.