Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
arguing that plaintiffs do not ascribe any economic significance to the eight county area. They argue that plaintiffs’ experts reach contradictory conclusions and have not made findings supporting the alleged eight county geographic market. Plaintiffs allege in their amended complaint that the alleged antitrust violation, injury and damage occurred in the eight county area and that defendants and their co-conspirators have market power in this area. The court of appeals has approved geographic markets consisting of multiple counties in antitrust cases involving the provision of health care. See Blue Cross, 65 F.3d at 1411 (noting that either the individual counties or a group of counties where defendants operate would be an appropriate geographic market); Rockford, 898 F.2d at 1284-85 . Whether plaintiffs’ expert reports or other
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. recognizing that what is a reasonable area is a factual matter to be determined in each noncompete case
B. recognizing the uncertain state of federal law in this area
C. holding physician in action based on illegal cavity search to standard of a reasonable physician
D. recognizing that a geographic market is hard to define but approving a three county area based on defendants service area and physician and patient preference for nearby hospitals
E. holding that a plaintiff physician alleging race and national origin discrimination was not required to pursue his claims initially with the phc because the hospitals basis for revoking his privileges was sexual harassment allegations and not patient care deficiencies
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.