Given the task definition and input, reply with output. 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.

Id. Only if such a re-opening occurred, could the district court have jurisdiction to review the merits of the Secretary's determination. The McGowen court stressed that in determining whether a claim is in fact the same claim, the Secretary: ... must in fairness look far enough into the proffered factual and legal support to determine whether it is the same claim, and if so, whether it should nevertheless be re-opened as a discretionary matter. Id. at 67. The McGowen court concluded that where the discussion of the merits is followed by a specific conclusion that the claim is denied on res judicata grounds, the decision should not be interpreted as reopening the claim and is therefore not reviewable. Id. at 68. Cf. Taylor for Peck v. Heckler, 738 F.2d 1112, 1115 (10th Cir. 1984) (<HOLDING>). This case is clearly distinguishable from the
Holding statements: (A) holding res judicata inapplicable where previous dismissal was based on lack of jurisdiction (B) holding that this line of cases was not on point and that no error was apparent on the face of the record due to lack of reporters record from defaultjudgment hearing because the judgment reflected that it was based only on the pleadings and affidavits that were in the record (C) holding that application of res judicata requires that a prior adjudication include a ruling on the merits (D) holding the trial court is not required to make specific findings of fact on the record for each wham factor if the record contains sufficient evidentiary support for the finding of lack of good cause (E) holding the alt reopened the case because of extent of review of evidence and evidentiary hearing and explicitly relying on lack of specific ruling on the basis of res judicata and no specific decimation to reopen the decision in the record
holding res judicata inapplicable where previous dismissal was based on lack of jurisdiction