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.

[EX Q]: previously discussed Wilson's subjective complaints, then identified specific discrepancies between those complaints and the medical evidence. He noted that though she claimed back pain since 2000, she continued working till November 2002, when her company merged and she lost her job. He also noted that the record established that she walked with a normal unassisted gait, in contrast with her complaints about her problems walking. Additionally, he indicated that the record showed she had never been hospitalized for any orthopedic reason and had never taken any potent pain medication, though she claimed severely debilitating pain. The ALJ's credibility finding was fully explained and is supported by substantial evidence. See, e.g., Hartranft v. Apfel, 181 F.3d 358, 362 (3d Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>). Wilson also contends, given her inability to
Holding statements: (A) holding that the alj did not err in discounting a claimants reports of pain where they were not supported by the medical record (B) holding that alj may not base adverse credibility finding on his perceptions of claimants pain at the hearing where record shows objective evidence of claimants pain (C) holding that alj properly evaluated credibility where he cited specific instances where claimants complaints about pain and other subjective symptoms were inconsistent with the objective medical evidence of record (D) holding that the alj properly relied on medical evidence undermining claimants subjective assessment of limitations (E) holding that an alj is entitled to make a credibility determination regarding the claimants subjective complaints after specifically addressing these complaints and reviewing the medical evidence in the record
[EX A]: (C)

[EX Q]: not impliedly preempt the field of law related to the price, route, and service of motor carriers of property, and does not impliedly preempt by conflict her state-law claims. As stated above, in Kelley the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that 14501(c) preempts the field of law regarding price, route, and service of motor carriers of property. See Kelley, 69 F.3d at 1509-10 ("Here, Congress has clearly chosen ... to preempt the entire field of price, service, and route regulation of intrastate motor carrier activities."). Furthermore, other federal courts have held that 14501(c)(1) expressly preempts state tort claims relating to price, route, or service against motor carriers of property. See, e.g., Data Mfg., Inc. v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 557 F.3d 849 (8th Cir.2009) (<HOLDING>); Deerskin Trading Post, Inc. v. United Parcel
Holding statements: (A) holding plaintiffs statelaw claims alleging common law misrepresentation and statutory misrepresentation under the texas insurance code art 2121 not preempted because they were not dependent on the right to recover benefits under the erisa plan (B) holding fraudulent representations to the fda could not sustain statelaw claims (C) holding that 14501c1 preempted statelaw claims of fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation and money had and received related to billing practices of motor carrier of property (D) holding negligent misrepresentation sufficient (E) holding misrepresentation claim to be preempted
[EX A]: (C)

[EX Q]: paying $1,000 each month (Cf. Doc 43, p. 7, line 19). 9 . A true comparison of the Schedule J expenses and the Form B22C expenses cannot be made because they are described, calculated, and grouped differently from each other. 10 .The court notes that, although raised by the parties, the narrow exception for "special circumstances" found in 11 U.S.C. 707(b)(2)(B) is a confirmation issue and not a post-confirmation modification issue. Kolb never discusses post-confirmation modification, except to raise the question this decision addresses. In re Kolb, 366 B.R. 802, 817, n. 21 (Bankr.S.D.Ohio 2007). 11 . The text in italics represents language added and the strikeout text is language removed by the enactment of BAPCPA. 12 . See, e.g., In re Solis, 172 B.R. 530 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y.1994) (<HOLDING>) and Sunahara v. Burchard (In re Sunahara), 326
Holding statements: (A) holding that plaintiff entitled to recover for changes not incorporated into contract under theory of breach (B) holding that the general corporate laws are incorporated into the corporate charter (C) holding that a court in deciding a rule 12b6 motion may consider a document that is incorporated by reference into the complaint (D) holding 1325b is incorporated into 1329 (E) holding patent policy incorporated by reference into patent agreement
[EX A]:
(D)