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.

[EX Q]: 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
[EX A]: holding that vicarious liability claim against union based on medical malpractice of treating physician is not preempted by erisa

[EX Q]: on the circuit court orders and the statements of defense counsel at the hearing. We hold that neither the doctors nor the trial court could rely on facts and legal conclusions within the circuit court orders. Thus, the doctors’ assertions at the hearing, which were based on facts within the orders, constituted factual statements of counsel. Moreover, the orders were, in effect, memoranda submitted by counsel. In any event, the trial court could not properly consider factual statements from either when deciding the motions, however they are characterized. Cf. Stiles v. Onorato, 318 S.C. 297, 457 S.E.2d 601 (1995) (noting that the ruling on a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss must be based solely upon the allegations set forth on the face of the complaint); Gilmore, 290 S.C. 53, 348 S.E.2d 180 (<HOLDING>). This is not to say that circuit court orders 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the judge cannot consider factual statements of counsel in a motion for summary judgment (B) holding that unsworn statements may not be considered on a motion for summary judgment (C) holding that a trial court can only consider admissible evidence in ruling on a motion for summary judgment (D) holding that motion to dismiss cannot be treated as summary judgment (E) holding that conclusory statements without factual support are of no value to the court when deciding a summary judgment motion
[EX A]: holding that unsworn statements may not be considered on a motion for summary judgment

[EX Q]: loss of hearing was caused by exposure to the horn blasts (Danziger Aff. ¶ 19), he has not presented an analysis of the levels of noise exposure experienced by plaintiff, except to note that even noise found to be permissible under OSHA regulations might still cause injury. {Id. ¶ 16). The problem is that in the absence of any evidence as to the noise levels actually experienced by Mr. Tufar-iello, it is impossible for anyone to o railroad safety are concerned, courts have held that the failure to present expert testimony on those issues meant that the plaintiff had failed to establish a prima facie case. See, e.g., In re Amtrak “Sunset Ltd. ” Train Crash, 188 F.Supp.2d at 1347; see also Simpson v. Northeast Illinois Regional Commuter Railroad Corp., 957 F.Supp. 136, 138 (N.D.Ill.1997) (<HOLDING>); Turner v. Norfolk & Western Ry. Co., 785 
 Holding statements: (A) holding the connection is an element (B) holding that there must be a causal connection between the advertising activity and the injury alleged in the underlying complaint (C) holding that expert testimony usually is necessary to establish a causal connection between an injury and its source unless the connection is a kind that would be obvious to laymen such as a broken leg from being struck by an automobile  (D) holding that to show a causal connection the plaintiff must demonstrate a relationship between the misconduct and the plaintiffs injury (E) holding that there must be some causal connection between the accident and the automobile allegedly involved for coverage to exist
[EX A]:
holding the connection is an element