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.

of the statute before many petitioners would be able to identify, with reasonable certainty, the nature of the injury. Brice v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 36 Fed.Cl. 474, 477 (1996), aff'd on other grounds, 240 F.3d 1367 (Fed.Cir.2001). In Brice, we held that equitable tolling is not available for claims arising under § 300-16(a)(2), reasoning that “the statute of limitations here begins to run upon the first symptom or manifestation of the onset of injury, even if the petitioner reasonably would not have known at that time that the vaccine had caused an injury.” 240 F.3d at 1373; see also Sharpnack v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 90-983V, 1992 WL 167255, at *2 (Cl.Ct. Special Master June 29, 1992), aff'd, 27 Fed.Cl. 457 (1993), aff'd, 17 F.3d 1442 (Fed.Cir.1994) (table) (<HOLDING>). The Supreme Court, in Whitecotton, 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that absolute immunity protects  judges  so long as their acts are judicial  in nature internal quotation omitted (B) holding substantial evidence is defined as more than a scintilla but less than a preponderance and consists of such relevant evidence as a reasonable person would accept as adequate to support a eonclusion  (C) holding that in many vaccine program cases the injuries are first manifest ed as subtle signs and seizures of less complicated nature eg seizures lasting less than 30 minutes or seizure activity so subtle as to be unrecognized at their onset (D) holding that the govemment is not liable under the federal tort claims act for injuries to service members where the injuries arise out of or are in the course of activity incident to military service (E) holding that the united states is immune from monetary damages for injuries to servicemen where the injuries arise out of or are in the course of activity incident to service
holding that absolute immunity protects  judges  so long as their acts are judicial  in nature internal quotation omitted

(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
holding that where statute is ambiguous deference is appropriately accorded to agencys interpretation

F.2d 1180 (3d Cir.1985), we held that ACME Scale & Supply met the ERISA definition of fiduciary as an employer-administrator of the plan at issue. Id. at 1184. We found that the employer exercised discretionary authority and control in managing the plan by notifying certain employees when they were eligible for an increase in life insurance coverage not explained in the terms of the plan. Id. at 1184-85. The employer’s failure to notify all employees generally was deemed a breach of the fiduciary duty ERISA imposes. Id. at 1185-86. See also Fischer v. Philadelphia Elec. Co., 994 F.2d 130, 133 (3d Cir.1993) (finding employer to have fiduciary status solely on the basis of its role as plan administrator under ERISA); Hozier v. Midwest Fasteners, Inc., 908 F.2d 1155, 1158 (3d Cir.1990) (<HOLDING>). ERISA makes clear that a fiduciary is one 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that when employers serve as plan administrators they assume the role of fiduciary under erisa (B) holding that unlike the social security disability program erisa does not require plan administrators to give special deference to the opinions of treating physicians and noting that there are critical differences between the two programs that nothing in erisa requires employers to establish employee benefit plans and that erisa does not mandate what kind of benefits employers must provide if they choose to have such a plan quotations omitted (C) holding that because an erisa plan is not a participant beneficiary or fiduciary subject matter jurisdiction did not exist under  502e of erisa over a suit brought by such a plan (D) recognizing that benefit plans must designate a fiduciary to serve as the plan administrator (E) recognizing that plan participants should be able to access information about the plan administrators fiduciary duties from the plan administrators counsel

holding that unlike the social security disability program erisa does not require plan administrators to give special deference to the opinions of treating physicians and noting that there are critical differences between the two programs that nothing in erisa requires employers to establish employee benefit plans and that erisa does not mandate what kind of benefits employers must provide if they choose to have such a plan quotations omitted