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.

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
(C)

abuse of a minor, the trial court may apply the statutory presumption that Junior and Saul are at substantial risk of being sexually abused. And if the trial court again finds that Rowan sexually abused Agnes, it can conclude that Junior and Saul are at substantial risk of being sexually abused. v. CONCLUSION We REMAND this case to the trial court for proceedings consistent with this opinion. Jurisdiction is RETAINED. 1 . We use pseudonyms to protect the privacy of the parties. 2 . The record does not show that Rowan attempted to obtain the information any other way, such as by scheduling a deposition, before making his motion. 3 . AS 40.25.100-295. AST relied on AS 40.25.120(a)(2), records pertaining to juveniles, and (a)(6), law enforcement records. 4 . 533 P.2d 13, 16 (Alaska 1975) (<HOLDING>). 5 . Rhodes v. Erion, 189 P.3d 1051, 1053 
 Holding statements: (A) holding prison official is deliberately indifferent if he knew that prisoner faced a substantial risk of harm and disregarded that risk (B) holding that mere knowledge of a defect is not sufficient to amount to an eighth amendment claim defendant must also draw the inference that a substantial risk of serious harm exists (C) holding defendants prior conviction for assault related to sexual abuse of a minor even though it did not require an act of sexual abuse because it required intent to commit sexual abuse  and such a mens rea demonstrate the offense was one relating to sexual abuse (D) holding that fathers sexual abuse of daughter demonstrated serious disregard of parental responsibilities and lack of social and moral values that posed substantial risk of harm to sons (E) holding that a party who can show a significant risk of irreparable harm has demonstrated that the harm is not speculative
(D)

Mathews has named a number of white employees whom he believes were similarly situated and were not terminated. From an examination of the affidavits in the record, it appears that employees named Schmidt, Hoile, Warner, Blanford and “Moonehicken” possibly had attendance problems. See generally Flint, Figueroa, Gamble, Hines and Wedge Affs. However, these affidavits, besides being primarily hearsay and speculation, contain only general statements regarding these individuals’ behavior that do not meet Mathews’ burden of establishing that these Caucasian employees also repeatedly violated Giant policies, that Giant policies required the employees’ termination and that the employees were not terminated. See Evans v. Techs. Applications & Serv. Co., 80 F.3d 954, 962 (4th Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>). Therefore, Mathews has failed to establish 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that affidavits that are conclusory and based on hearsay can not be used to oppose motion for summary judgment (B) holding that party may not rely on conclusory statements or an argument that the affidavits in support of the motion for summary judgment are not credible (C) holding that statements in affidavits based solely on hearsay are inadmissible as summary judgment evidence (D) holding that unsworn statements signed under penalty of peijury can be used to oppose a motion for summary judgment (E) holding affidavits based on conclusory allegations insufficient at summary judgment

(A)