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. The four incorrect answers are other holding statements. You should find the correct option. There is a <HOLDING> token in the position of the citing text prompt where the holding statement was extracted.

Example Input: if the terms of the health care plan specifically exclude from coverage the cost of an appendectomy, then any injuries caused by the refusal to cover the appendectomy are properly attributed to the terms of the plan itself, not the managed care entity that applied those terms. 4 Respondents also argue that ERISA § 502(a) completely pre-empts a state cause of action only if the cause of action would be pre-empted under ERISA § 514(a); respondents then argue that their causes of action do not fall under the terms of § 514(a). But a state cause of action that provides an alternative remedy to those provided by the ERISA civil enforcement mechanism conflicts with Congress’ clear intent to make the ERISA mechanism exclusive. See Ingersoll-Rand Co. v. McClendon, 498 U. S.133, 142 (1990) (<HOLDING>). 5 ERISA § 514(b)(2)(A), 29 U. S. C. § 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the plaintiffs causes of action were preempted because their claims were premised on the existence of an erisa plan (B) recognizing cause of action (C) holding that ejven if there were no express preemption under erisa  514a of the cause of action in that case it would be preempted because it conflicted directly with an erisa cause of action (D) recognizing cause of action for equitable estoppel under erisa (E) recognizing the cause of action
Example Output: (C)

Example Input: previously discussed Wilson’s subjective complaints, then identified specific discrepancies between those complaints and the medical evidence. He noted that though she claimed back pain since 2000, she continued working till November 2002, when her company merged and she lost her job. He also noted that the record established that she walked with a normal unassisted gait, in contrast with her complaints about her problems walking. Additionally, he indicated that the record showed she had never been hospitalized for any orthopedic reason and had never taken any potent pain medication, though she claimed severely debilitating pain. The ALJ’s credibility finding was fully explained and is supported by substantial evidence. See, e.g., Hartranft v. Apfel, 181 F.3d 358, 362 (3d Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>). Wilson also contends, given her inability to 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the alj did not err in discounting a claimants reports of pain where they were not supported by the medical record (B) holding that alj may not base adverse credibility finding on his perceptions of claimants pain at the hearing where record shows objective evidence of claimants pain (C) holding that alj properly evaluated credibility where he cited specific instances where claimants complaints about pain and other subjective symptoms were inconsistent with the objective medical evidence of record (D) holding that the alj properly relied on medical evidence undermining claimants subjective assessment of limitations (E) holding that an alj is entitled to make a credibility determination regarding the claimants subjective complaints after specifically addressing these complaints and reviewing the medical evidence in the record
Example Output: (C)

Example Input: denied him due process of law when it dismissed his appeal without again directing him to argue for application of equitable tolling. II. This court reviews the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims’ interpretation of statutes without deference to the extent presented and necessary for a decision. 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d) (1994); Epps v. Gober, 126 F.3d 1464, 1466-67 (Fed.Cir.1997); Prenzler v. Derwinski, 928 F.2d 392, 393 (Fed.Cir.1991). This review includes questions of statutory jurisdiction. 38 U.S.C. § 7292(a), (c) (1994); Wick v. Brown, 40 F.3d 367, 370 (Fed.Cir.1994). Furthermore, this court narrowly construes jurisdictional statutes. Wick, 40 F.3d at 370. This court does not review a challenge to a factual determination made by the Secretary or the Board of Veterans’ Appeal 00) (<HOLDING>). But see Friendly Fin. Corp. v. Bovee, 702 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that service was not defeated by an address with an incorrect zip code (B) holding that an incorrect zip code does not render an otherwise proper address improper (C) holding that an inaccurate zip code does not render an address improper for purposes of texas rule of civil procedure 5 (D) holding a missing zip code to be an inconsequential error that does not defeat a notice of deficiency (E) holding that although an address in which the zip code is incorrect may be properly addressed an address in which both the zip code and the street address is incorrect is not properly addressed
Example Output:
(C)