Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
Barnes appeals from the district court’s summary judgment in favor of AT & T Pension Benefit Plan-Nonbargained Program (Plan). We review de -17, 128 S.Ct. 2343, 171 L.Ed.2d 299 (2008) (explaining that a conflict of interest is but one “factor” that courts consider in determining the deference to afford an administrator’s decision). Barnes’s arguments as to why the court should review the Plan’s decision de novo are unpersuasive. Salomaa v. Honda Long Term Disability Plan, 642 F.3d 666, 674 (9th Cir.2011) ; Gatti v. Reliance Standard Life Ins. Co., 415
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that erisa does not require plan administrators to give special deference to treating physicians opinions although administrators may not arbitrarily refuse to credit them
B. recognizing the conflict
C. holding in the absence of exceptional circumstances deference should be given to trial court
D. holding that the court discounts deference given to administrators decision to the extent to which it was influenced by a conflict of interest
E. holding that the court must consider the adequacy of the inquiry into the conflict the extent of the conflict and the timeliness of the motion
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.