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]: complaint nor any facts relating to VBCJ's General Order support an argument that Waters received less procedural due process than what is constitutionally required in the circumstances. Therefore, VBCJ's fee program does not violate Waters' right to procedural due process. C. Legitimate Penological Interest Finally, Waters' complaint, broadly construed, alleges that Virginia's one dollar per day room and board fee is not reasonably related to any legitimate penological interest. This claim also plainly fails, as there are several conceivable rationales to support the finding that VBCJ's fee program is " 'reasonably related' to promoting a legitimate penological interest." Sample v. Angelone, 173 F.3d 425 (Table), 1999 WL 52347, *1 (4th Cir. Feb.5 S.Ct. 285, 50 L.Ed.2d 251 (1976) (<HOLDING>). 5 . Section 53.1-131.3 provides as follows:
Holding statements: (A) holding that in a prisoners eighth amendment claim of deliberate indifference to a serious medical need expert testimony is necessary when the seriousness of injury or illness would not be apparent to a lay person (B) holding that the eighth amendment protects prisoners only from deliberate indifference to their serious medical needs (C) holding that in order to state a violation of the eighth amendment an inmate must demonstrate that prison officials showed deliberate indifference to serious medical needs (D) holding that deliberate indifference standard for imposing supervisory liability based on an eighth amendment violation is consistent with iqbal and collecting cases (E) holding that deliberate indifference to a serious medical need establishes an eighth amendment violation
[EX A]: holding that in a prisoners eighth amendment claim of deliberate indifference to a serious medical need expert testimony is necessary when the seriousness of injury or illness would not be apparent to a lay person

[EX Q]: manual labor, as well as engaging in such activities as dancing, fighting, and being jailed for public intoxication. We stated that: [an i]njury aggravated or extended in time by the employee's neglect or disobedience of his physician's instructions is not com-pensable as to the additional period.... The proposition that one may continue, or even increase, his disability by his willful and unreasonable conduct, and then claim compensation from his employer for his disability so caused, is untenable. Id. at 410, 244 N.W. at 541 (citing Honnold, Workmen's Compensation, vol.l, 137, pp. 521, 523). [ 11] Courts in other jurisdictions have also recognized the rule in Detling, albeit applying their own states' standards. See Appleby v. Belden Corp., 22 Ark.App. 243, 738 S.W.2d 807 (1987) (<HOLDING>); Amoco Chemical Corp. v. Hill, 318 A.2d 614,
Holding statements: (A) holding that new statute which required proof that asbestos exposure was substantial contributing factor to claimants medical condition could be applied to pending cases and did not abrogate claimants vested right because she was still able to pursue her cause of action and recover for injury caused by her husbands exposure to asbestos statute merely affected methods and procedure by which that action was recognized protected and enforced not the cause of action itself (B) holding that when a preexisting infirmity is aggravated by repetitive minute trauma as a result of the ordinary and necessary duties of employment the disability resulting from such aggravation is compensable as a personal injury under the workers compensation statute (C) holding that if state law provides multiple statutes of limitations for personal injury actions the general or residual statute for personal injury actions should be used for 1983 actions (D) holding a claimants injury report to a fellow employee did not satisfy the act because the claimants supervisor did not learn of the injury until six months later (E) holding that claimants actions in heavy houseeleaning and house painting in contravention of medical restrictions was so unreasonable as to bar compensation for aggravation of her back injury
[EX A]: holding that new statute which required proof that asbestos exposure was substantial contributing factor to claimants medical condition could be applied to pending cases and did not abrogate claimants vested right because she was still able to pursue her cause of action and recover for injury caused by her husbands exposure to asbestos statute merely affected methods and procedure by which that action was recognized protected and enforced not the cause of action itself

[EX Q]: is in the child's best interest; (h) that, after ... the child was returned to live in the child's own home, the parent ... refused or failed to give the child proper parental care and protection; or (i) the terms and conditions of safe relinguishment of a newborn child have been complied with.... Id. 78A-6-507(1)(a)-@). 12 . Id. 78A-6-507(1)(a). 13 . Id. 78A-6-50700(00). 14 . See id. 78A-6-506(3) ("[The welfare and best interest of the child {is] of paramount importance in determining whether termination of parental rights shall be ordered."); see also State ex rel. A.C.M., 2009 UT 30, 23, 221 P.3d 185 (stating that a best interest analysis is the second step in terminating parental rights). 15 . Uraw Cope Amn. 78A-6-509(1)(a) (Supp. 2011). 16 . See id. 78A-6-509(1) (<HOLDING>). 17 . See Urax Copp Ann. 78A-6-507(1)(a)
Holding statements: (A) recognizing this substantial interest in context of termination of parental rights (B) holding that the district court should consider the totality of the circumstances in determining whether the patentee acted in subjective bad faith and should consider whether circumstantial evidence would support an inference of bad faith (C) recognizing that a court is not limited in what it may consider in determining whether parental rights should be terminated (D) holding that due process allows parental rights to be terminated only upon clear and convincing evidence of unfitness (E) holding the parental rights of a child may not be terminated unless that parent has been represented by counsel at every critical stage of the proceedings
[EX A]:
recognizing this substantial interest in context of termination of parental rights