Q: 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.
showed excellent decompression and an excellent position of plates and screws. Dr. Eichert noted that although Claimant reported continued neck pain to Dr. Crow, the treatment notes from the operating surgeon do not reflect significant complaint by Claimant during her follow-up treatment after surgery. The medical records of Claimant's treating doctors do not contain clinical evidence of a disabling condition during the relevant time period or any restrictions imposed by the doctors. Indeed, the record shows that on August 22, 2005, Dr. Crow released Claimant to work but in the following appointment, on August 30, 2005, Dr. Crow found Claimant's condition to be permanent without any testing in support of his determination. See Prosch v. Apfel, 201 F.3d 1010, 1012-13 (8th Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>). In any case, whether there is work which
Holding statements: (A) 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 (B) holding alj properly relied on treating physicians wellsupported opinion especially when the contradictory evidence is plaintiffs own medical opinions about her condition (C) holding that an alj may discount a treating physicians opinion where the physician has offered inconsistent opinions (D) holding that the alj erred by failing to mention the contrary opinion of a treating physician (E) holding that remand was not required and that the aljs failure to mention treating physicians opinion was harmless error because the alj adopted the treating physicians recommendations
A:
(C)