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.

[Q]: (2013) (ex plaining the FDA’s view that “promoting a drug for an off-label use is a violation” of the FDCA’s misbranding provisions). Based on this view, the FDA has recovered millions of dollars in settlements from drug manufacturers that have engaged in off-label promotion. See, e.g., id. at 232 (citing Press Release, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Justice Department Announces Largest Health Care Fraud Settlement in Its History, (Sept. 2, 2009) (trumpeting a mul-ti-billion dollar fine imposed against a drug company that promoted its drugs for uses and dosages that the FDA specifically declined to approve)). The FDA’s informal interpretation of a statute it administers is entitled to some deference from courts. See Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U.S. 134, 140, 65 S.Ct. 161, 89 L.Ed. 124 (1944) (<HOLDING>). But courts have not always agreed with the 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that where statute is ambiguous deference is appropriately accorded to agencys interpretation (B) holding that an agencys interpretation of its own regulations is entitled to deference (C) holding that deference is owed to state agencys interpretation of state law (D) holding that an agencys informal interpretation of a statute it administers is entitled to deference to the extent it has the power to persuade (E) holding that agency interpretation which is reasonable is entitled to deference
[A]: holding that where statute is ambiguous deference is appropriately accorded to agencys interpretation


[Q]: reimbursement decisions to be made on an ad hoc basis. Id. at 549. Of note here, we explained that “even if the Commission had promulgated fee guidelines, the provider would not have a statutory right or privilege to be paid the amount set out in the guideline.” Id. According to East Side, Vista is, likewise, neither entitled to a fee guideline nor entitled to any set amount of reimbursement. See id. Given that no specific reimbursement amount is required, even where the Division has established fee guidelines, and that the Division can reason ng statute and rule as whole to find broad definition of “prohibited activities” and absence of definition for “market power” as providing constitutionally permissible notice of type of prohibited conduct contemplated); Tinning, 875 S.W.2d at 409 (<HOLDING>). The language in these cases, similar to 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that when a term is not defined in a contract the presumption is that the term is to be given its ordinary meaning and significance (B) holding term share legal fees although not expressly defined provides adequate notices of type of conduct it would include (C) holding that when a term is defined in the statute it need not be further alleged in the indictment (D) holding that although term was not limited by the specification it was expressly defined in a narrow manner in the prosecution history (E) holding that the statute was ambiguous because it provides no definition of the term violation and provides no specific direction as to the proper unit of prosecution
[A]: holding that when a term is not defined in a contract the presumption is that the term is to be given its ordinary meaning and significance


[Q]: also depend upon voluntary reporting by physicians and other health care professionals. See Protecting the Identities of Reporters of Adverse Events and Patients, 59 Fed.Reg. at 3945. Yet courts have allowed discovery of such reports. See, e.g., In Re Eli Lilly & Co., 142 F.R.D. at 461 (allowing discovery of adverse reaction reports in redacted form); Harris v. Upjohn Co., 115 F.R.D. 191, 1921-93 (S.D.Ill. 1987) (allowing discovery of adverse reaction reports and drug experience reports in redacted form); Waelde v. Merck, Sharp & Dohme, 94 F.R.D. 27, 28-30 (E.D.Mich.1981) (denying protective order of New Drug Application file, information related to post-marketing adverse events, pre-marketing studies, and animal tests); Eli Lilly & Co. v. Marshall, 850 S.W.2d 155, 160 (Tex.1993) (<HOLDING>). Defendants have presented no case law that 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that when a plaintiff can establish that she was in the vicinity in which asbestos dust from defendants products was inhaled a jury can reasonably infer that plaintiff was injured by defendants products (B) recognizing that substantial change is a defense to a products liability claim (C) holding that a products liability plaintiff was entitled to discovery of redacted adverse reaction reports (D) recognizing products liability and products actions based on negligence as part of the general maritime law (E) recognizing the significance of control in strict products liability
[A]:
holding that when a plaintiff can establish that she was in the vicinity in which asbestos dust from defendants products was inhaled a jury can reasonably infer that plaintiff was injured by defendants products