Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
on behalf of an employee. Id. at 136, 111 S.Ct. 478. Thus, both the existence of a pension plan and a pension-defeating motive behind the termination were critical elements to the state cause of action. Id. at 140, 111 S.Ct. 478. The Court reasoned that to allow the state cause of action would lead to "different substantive standards applicable to the same employer conduct, requiring the tailoring of plans and employer conduct to the peculiarities of the law of each jurisdiction. Such an outcome is fundamentally at odds with the goal of uniformity that Congress sought to implement.” Id. at 142, 111 S.Ct. 478. Moreover, the offensive conduct was already prohibited by ERISA, and thus the state statute would create an alternate enforcement mechanism. Id. at 145, 1 1th Cir.1987) . We have previously stated that "state law
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding state law malpractice claim against a physician was preempted where the physician acting as the plan administrator denied a thallium stress test as a plan benefit
B. holding that an employees suit against agent for denied disability benefits was preempted
C. holding that district courts order remanding an erisa benefits determination to a plan administrator was nonfinal and therefore not appealable after the remand to plan administrator plan participant still could appeal the district courts decision that erisa preempted her state law claim and if successful she would be able to pursue punitive damage
D. holding that an erisa plan administrator is not bound by an ssa disability determination when reviewing a claim for benefits
E. holding that an employees claim against plan administrator for denied benefits is preempted
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.