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.
Q: Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986). Instead, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require the non-moving party to present specific facts showing that a genuine factual issue exists by "citing to particular parts of materials in the record" or by "showing that the materials cited do not establish the absence of a genuine dispute." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1). "The mere existence of a scintilla of evidence' in' 'support of the [non-moving party's] position will be insufficient; there must 'be evidence on which the jury could reasonably find for the [non-moving party]." Anderson, 477 U.S. at 252,106 S.Ct. 2505. III. Discussion Plaintiffs allege in their Complaint that Dr. Huxol and OMHS deviated from the applicable 78 (4th Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>); Gatewood v. Wash. Healthcare Corp., 933 F.2d
Holding statements: (A) holding that emtala does pot give patients a private cause of action against their physicians (B) holding that failure to record an assignment does not give rise to a cause of action (C) holding that emtala does not provide a private cause of action against individual physicians or against physicians medical corporations (D) holding strict control test inapplicable in determining the scope of immunity for physicians under federal law because medical ethics require physicians to exercise independent judgment in the best interest of their patients (E) holding that emtala does not allow private suits against physicians
A:
holding that failure to record an assignment does not give rise to a cause of action