Instructions: 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.
Input: seeking treatment elsewhere. Id. at 567, 167 S.E.2d at 567. In this case, Dr. Epstein indicated Clark was not a suitable candidate for treatment and referred him for pain management. That treatment was unsuccessful, however. Because Clark related the continuing symptoms to the treating physicians and was unable to obtain relief, he was justified in seeking treatment elsewhere. Although the more appropriate procedure would have been for Clark to seek an order from the full commission before engaging Dr. Greenberg for treatment and surgery, we find that under Ford the full commission was not outside its discretion in ordering the County to pay for the surgery and continuing treatment, once it determined the treatment was medically necessary. See Gattis, 353 S.C. at 111, 576 S.E.2d at 197 (<HOLDING>). We find no merit to the County's argument
Holding statements: (A) holding that pro se pleadings are to be liberally construed (B) holding that the workers compensation act is to be liberally construed and reasonable doubts as to construction are to be resolved in favor of coverage (C) holding that pleadings under the rico act are to be liberally construed (D) holding that the workers compensation act is to be liberally construed in the employees favor and any doubt in its construction is thus resolved in favor of the employee (E) holding that statutes and ordinances are presumed to be constitutional and all reasonable doubts must be resolved in favor of constitutionality
Output:
holding that pro se pleadings are to be liberally construed