Detailed 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. 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.
Problem:child abuse coincides with the appropriate measures that child protective services employees acting pursuant to 424 are supposed to undertake. Section 424 provides, in relevant part, that if "the child protective service ... determines that the best interest of the child require[s] family court or criminal court action, [it could] initiate the appropriate family court proceeding or make a referral to the appropriate district attorney, or both." Under the SSL, conclusive proof of child abuse is not a requisite threshold to trigger reporting under 424. See Isabelle V. v. City of New York, 150 A.D.2d 312, 541 N.Y.S.2d 809, 809 (App.Div.1st Dep't 1989); see also Kempster v. Child Protective Services of the County of Suffolk, 130 A.D.2d 623, 515 N.Y.S.2d 807, 809 (App.Div.2d Dep't 1987)(<HOLDING>). In Isabelle, hospital employees, pursuant to
Holding statements: (A) holding that compliance with fda requirements though admissible to demonstrate lack of negligence is not conclusive on this issue just as violation of fda requirements is evidence but not conclusive evidence of negligence (B) holding that reporting requirements that are afforded immunity under 419 are not predicated on actual or conclusive evidence of abuse or maltreatment (C) holding that the substantive provisions and reporting requirements of an unclaimed property law are valid as applied to national banks (D) holding that defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity (E) holding that trial courts resolution of disputed facts are conclusive on appeal when supported by substantial evidence
Solution:
(B)