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]: act, 1976 PA 267, MCL 15.261 to 15.275. (3) If the board arbitrarily and capriciously violates section 7(9), the board shall he subject to the penalties prescribed in the freedom of information act, 1976 PA 442, MCL 15.231 to 15.246. B If “a statute gives new rights and prescribes new remedies, such remedies must be strictly pursued; and a party seeking a remedy under the act is confined to the remedy conferred thereby and to that only.” Monroe Beverage Co, Inc v Stroh Brewery Co, 454 Mich 41, 45; 559 NW2d 297 (1997) (quotation marks and citation omitted). However, “[w]hen a statute provides a remedy for enforcement of a common-law right, the statutory scheme is merely cumulative and not exclusive.” Morris Pumps v Centerline Piping, Inc, 273 Mich App 187, 201; 729 NW2d 898 (2006) (<HOLDING>). At common law there has always been a remedy 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that because the federal arbitration act 9 usc 1 et seq preempts michigans lemon law mcl 2571401 et seq the plaintiffs lemon law claim should have been resolved through binding arbitration (B) holding that the plaintiffs claims for unjust enrichment were not barred by the availability of relief under the public works bonding act mcl 129201 et seq because a plaintiff enjoyed the right at common law to recover in quantum meruit from a defendant who had been unjustly enriched (C) recognizing that action for quantum meruit relief exists to avoid unjust enrichment (D) holding preemption is appropriate where unjust enrichment claim does not allege that the defendants were enriched by anything other than copyright infringement (E) holding that erisa does not permit a plaintiff to assert an independent federal common law cause of action such as unjust enrichment to enforce the terms of an erisa plan thus to the extent plaintiffs third cause of action for unjust enrichment is brought pursuant to a federal common law right it must be dismissed
[EX A]: holding that because the federal arbitration act 9 usc 1 et seq preempts michigans lemon law mcl 2571401 et seq the plaintiffs lemon law claim should have been resolved through binding arbitration

[EX Q]: with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and learned that the federal license "will not change upon renewal." 4 . The position statement included an Administrator's Memorandum, dated June 19, 1986, indicating how regional offices should handle approval of permits for hydropower purposes. The memorandum indicates that when dealing with a hydropower application coming within FERC jurisdiction, departmental staff need to be aware of FERC licensing conditions for the facility in question. An attachment to the memorandum shows standard conditions of approval for a state water rights permit and the language of one of such conditions is that which was incorporated into the license at issue in this case. The memorandum notes that an applicant "can request Department action on 0-41 (1969) (<HOLDING>). 7 . It was also after the enactment of I.C. § 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that simply because claimants had diverted the entire run of the water at issue did not give them the ability to claim a right to all the water when they could not and had not put it to beneficial use (B) holding that until the state issues a certificate of appropriation any right to use the water remains inchoate (C) holding that a water right is a property right created by a person appropriating unappropriated water and applying it to a beneficial use (D) holding that the legislative assembly intended the water right certificate not the permit even when followed by a beneficial use to mark the point at which a water right becomes vested (E) recognizing the right to use water to generate power
[EX A]: holding that simply because claimants had diverted the entire run of the water at issue did not give them the ability to claim a right to all the water when they could not and had not put it to beneficial use

[EX Q]: 38 42 U.S.C. § 11112(a)(3). 39 42 U.S.C. § 11112(a)(3). 40 Cowell also appears to argue that Russell was unaware of the second HC’s findings. But the second HC’s report was issued on December 29, 2006. Russell voted to terminate Cowell’s privileges at the MEC’s August 7, 2006, meeting. 41 See Morgan, 101 Wn. App at 773 (“[T]he fact that varying review committees differed on its conclusions does not undermine the fairness of the procedures.”); cf. Singh, 308 F.3d at 41 (“The reversal of a peer review committee’s recommendation of an adverse professional review action by a higher level peer review panel does not indicate that the initial recommendation was made without a reasonable belief that the recommendation would further quality health care.”); Austin, 979 F.2d at 735 (<HOLDING>). 42 See Morgan, 101 Wn. App. at 772 n.4 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing confidentiality essential to function of medical peer review committees and to improvement of health care and protecting the records of such committees from discovery (B) holding that the medical review panel is authorized to review the medical records and other submitted material pertaining to each defendants treatment of a patient and that while a medical malpractice plaintiff must as a prerequisite to filing suit present the  proposed complaint for review and expert opinion by a medical review panel there is no requirement for such plaintiff to fully explicate and provide the particulars or legal contentions regarding the claim (C) holding that reversal of a medical executive committees recommendation by a judicial review committee failed to establish that the defendants did not have a reasonable belief that the suspension was warranted (D) holding that malpractice was not a jury issue where there was a lack of medical evidence that the defendants alleged failure to correctly diagnose was due to the fact that he failed to use care skill and diligence ordinarily possessed and exercised by members of the medical community cited in the committee comment for uji 131115 (E) holding that the court will review the report and recommendation for clear error
[EX A]:
recognizing confidentiality essential to function of medical peer review committees and to improvement of health care and protecting the records of such committees from discovery