Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
when asked whether the Plaintiff had a “severe impairment” during the relevant period, and did not bother to list the evidence he reviewed that supported his assessment. (AR at 299.) Significantly, there is no mention whatsoever of fibro-myalgia, an impairment ALJ Cohen found was present in this case. (AR at 13, 307.) The general rule regarding the written reports of medical advisors who have not personally examined a claimant is that such reports deserve little weight in the overall evaluation of disability. Vargas v. Sullivan, 898 F.2d 293, 295-96 (2d Cir.1990). This is because the advisers’ assessment of what other doctors find is hardly a basis for competent evaluation without a personal examination of the claimant. Id.; see also Hidalgo v. Bowen, 822 F.2d 294, 298 (2d Cir.1987) ; Havas v. Bowen, 804 F.2d 783, 786 (2d
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a treating physicians diagnosis could be rejected for specific and legitimate reasons that are supported by substantial evidence in the record
B. holding that remand was not required and that the aljs failure to mention treating physicians opinion was harmless error because the alj adopted the treating physicians recommendations
C. holding that the testimony of a nonexamining medical advisor does not constitute evidence sufficient to override the treating physicians diagnosis
D. holding that the alj erred in failing to give the findings and assessments of the treating physicians any weight when the medical evidence and claimants testimony supported a diagnosis of cfs
E. holding that the alj properly relied on the assessments of a nonexamining physician and not claimants treating physicians in determining the rfc at step four
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.