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.

233(g)(4) (2005). The FSHCAA of 1992 addressed the liability for medical malpractice not only of a health center but also of a health care physician or licensed or certified practitioner recognized as part of the Public Health Service pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 254b(a)(l) and acting within the scope of their employment. For such liability, the FSHCAA provided that the exclusive remedy for a plaintiff would be against the United States under the FTCA. 42 U.S.C. 233(g). To be protected by the FTCA from liability for medical malpractice, a health center or an employee of such a center must be "deemed" an employee of the Public Health Service by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. 42 U.S.C. 233(f), (g)(1); see Allen v. Chris-tenberry, 327 F.3d 1290, 1294-95 (11th Cir. 2003) (<HOLDING>). Under the traditional formulation of the
Holding statements: (A) recognizing an individuals right of privacy in the content of health records and noting that health records are the property of the health care entity maintaining them (B) holding that the term medical as used in the hearsay exception regarding statements made for the purpose of medical diagnosis or treatment includes emotional and mental health as well as physical health (C) holding that compensatory contempt fines awarded against the secretary of health and human services were barred by sovereign immunity (D) recognizing the 48hour standard as a department of health regulation (E) holding that removal of suit against physicians employed by a federally funded community health center to federal court by the defendants on the ground that they were covered under the public health service act was improper as the department of health and human services had not yet made a determination whether defendants should be deemed to be employees
(E)