Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
her restrictions were based on “generalizations” and that she had not examined Plaintiff in over a year show that the assessment is not supported by specific medical findings. Furthermore, Dr. Vasicek’s assessment contradicts her own medical records. In a May 2007 evaluation, Plaintiff was allowed to return to modified work on April '30, 2007. (Tr. 290). It was noted that he could perform full weight bearing activities; constantly sit, stand and walk; frequently climb stairs; occasionally bend, squat and climb ladders; and had no lifting limitations. (Tr. 290). This directly conflicts with her September 2007 assessment, and she did not even examine Plaintiff during the intervening months. (Tr. 290, 369-73). See Stanley v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 39 F.3d 115, 118 (6th Cir.1994) . Additionally, the ALJ noted that there was
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the weight given to a treating physicians opinion is limited if the opinion consists only of conclusory statements
B. holding the alj did not err in declining to refer to treating physicians opinion where he originally opined that plaintiff could perform sedentary work and then changed his opinion without providing any supporting objective medical evidence
C. holding that an alj may discount a treating physicians opinion where the physician has offered inconsistent opinions
D. 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
E. holding that where a treating physicians opinion is contradicted by a consulting physician the alj must explain on the record the reasons for rejecting the opinion of the treating physician
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.