TASK DEFINITION: In this task, you will be shown a prompt from a judicial decision and multiple holding statements derived from citations following text in a legal decision.  Holdings represent the governing legal rule when the law is applied to a particular set of facts. There are five answer choices for each citing text. The correct answer is the holding statement that corresponds to the citing text. You should write an incorrect option. Even though there exist multiple wrong answers, we only need a single wrong answer. There is a <HOLDING> token in the position of the citing text prompt where the holding statement was extracted.
PROBLEM: v. Fortis Benefits Ins. Co., 116 F.Supp.2d 937, 950-51 (M.D.Tenn.2000). As other circuits have recognized, the treating physician rule is a standard that was developed in the Social Security context requiring the administrative law judge to give deference to the opinions of a claimant’s treating physician when determining the claimant’s eligibility for benefits. See, e.g., Regula, 266 F.3d at 1139; see also Peabody Coal Co. v. Groves, 277 F.3d 829, 833-35 (6th Cir.2002) (applying the “treating physician presumption” in a Black Lungs Benefit case holding that an AL J may place greater weight on the opinion of a claimant’s treating physician than those of non-treating physicians). Several circuits have adopted the treating physician rule in an ERISA context. Regula, 266 F.3d at 1139 (<HOLDING>); Donaho v. FMC Corp., 74 F.3d 894, 901 (8th 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that vicarious liability claim against union based on medical malpractice of treating physician is not preempted by erisa (B) holding that erisa benefits are not property of the estate (C) holding that an erisa plan administrator is not bound by an ssa disability determination when reviewing a claim for benefits (D) holding that where a treating physicians opinion is contradicted by a consulting physician the alj must explain on the record the reasons for rejecting the opinion of the treating physician (E) holding as a matter of first impression that the treating physician rule is applicable in the context of a disability benefits determination under erisa

SOLUTION: holding that vicarious liability claim against union based on medical malpractice of treating physician is not preempted by erisa

PROBLEM: transfer, and everything else about the transaction was local to St. Thomas, to wit: Franklin Martinez, the lender and president of Transcaribbean, is a St. Thomas resident and has substantial business interests in the Virgin Islands. Those interests include that Martinez is an officer and part-owner of Colombian Emeralds, Inc. and its subsidiaries, and a part-owner of Sea Wind Food Distributors, Inc., Clark asserts that federal jurisdiction is inappo-site because the transaction occurred between Martinez and Peter Clark — both local businessmen — and involved a loan to fund a local real-estate development. This argument fails because the Court may assume jurisdiction on the basis of a single interstate wire communication. See United States v. Pecora, 693 F.2d 421, 424 (5th Cir.1982) (<HOLDING>). Moreover, facts alleged by Clark about the 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that single substantial act can support exercise of personal jurisdiction (B) holding that the jurys guilty verdict on the separate substantive count of bribery under federal law confirms beyond any reasonable doubt that the jury would have convicted the defendant of honest services fraud if the courts definition had been limited to the bribery basis that skilling expressly approved (C) holding in action involving single claim that if claim sounded only in admiralty there would be no right to a jury trial but if federal question was present as a separate and independent basis for federal jurisdiction then the jury demand must be honored (D) holding that a federal court can assume jurisdiction over a local bribery ease involving only local residents on the basis of a single interstate telephone call (E) holding the federal tort claims act did not permit exercise of pendant jurisdiction over additional parties as to which no basis for federal jurisdiction existed

SOLUTION: holding that single substantial act can support exercise of personal jurisdiction

PROBLEM: at 321. We explained that “the pertinent inquiry is not whether the actual harm was of a particular kind which was expectable” but, “[r]ather, the question is whether the actual harm fell within a general field of danger which should have been anticipated.” Id. ¶54 Other lower courts have correctly observed that while prior similar acts are among the best evidence available to demonstrate that a business owner is on notice of a risk of harm to invitees, they are not the only relevant evidence. See, e.g., Passovoy, 52 Wn. App. at 172-73 (recognizing a business may be on notice that a shoplifter confronted by store detectives could cause harm to invitees, though no such harm had occurred on the premises in the past); Griffin v. W. RS, Inc., 97 Wn. App. 557, 567-70, 984 P.2d 1070 (1999) (<HOLDING>), rev’d on other grounds, 143 Wn.2d 81, 18 P.3d 
 Holding statements: (A) holding evidence insufficient to support conviction for possession when none of the defendants had any proprietary interest nor previous association with the premises and there was no evidence of how long the defendants had been on the premises prior to the arrival of the police (B) holding that a plaintiff had no injury in fact and consequently no standing when it had no enforceable contract right against the defendant (C) holding that the trial court committed no error in sustaining objection to plaintiffs testimony that the water had been there for some time because the plaintiff had no personal knowledge of how long the puddle had been there (D) holding business may be on notice of harm posed by intruder against invitee even when no intruder had been identified and there had been no prior acts on the premises (E) holding evidence insufficient to support conviction when none of the defendants had any proprietary interest nor previous association with the premises and there was no evidence of how long the defendants had been on the premises prior to the arrival of the police

SOLUTION:
holding evidence insufficient to support conviction for possession when none of the defendants had any proprietary interest nor previous association with the premises and there was no evidence of how long the defendants had been on the premises prior to the arrival of the police