Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
or internally inconsistent; (3) whether the interpretation conflicts with the substantive or procedural requirements of the ERISA statute; (4) whether the Plan Administrator interpreted the words at issue consistently; and (5) whether the interpretation is contrary to the clear language of the Plan. Finley, 957 F.2d at 621. The Plan Administrator does not render any language in the Plan meaningless or inconsistent. In fact, the interpretation is consistent with the Plan’s goals of excluding coverage for certain injuries arising out of particular circumstances, such as criminal activity. There is no evidence that the words at issue were ever interpreted inconsistently with regard to other claimants. Further, the interpretation is not contrary to the 1998 WL 385897, *2-3 (6th Cir.1998). “When a plan administrator offers a
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding plan administrators denial of benefits was arbitrary and capricious because the administrator in effect applied a per se rule treating all drunk driving deaths as nonaccidental
B. holding that a heightened arbitrary and capricious standard of review applied to the decision to deny benefits under the erisa plan
C. holding that the plan administrators decision to deny benefits to wifes claim for accidental benefits was not arbitrary and capricious because a clause in the husbands policy specifically excluded from accidental death coverage any purposeful selfinflicted injuries and any injuries caused by drug use and husband had died as a result of drunk drivingxper curiam
D. holding that under erisa a plan administrators decision to deny an employee longterm disability benefits is arbitrary and capricious if the administrator ignores favorable evidence  and selectively reviews the evidence it does consider
E. holding that in the absence of any definite anatomic explanations of plaintiffs symptoms we cannot find that the administrators decision to deny benefits was not arbitrary and capricious
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.