Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
A.2d 749 (1993); McCullough v. Xerox Corp., 399 Pa.Super. 135, 581 A.2d 961 (1990), allocatur denied, 527 Pa. 624, 592 A.2d 45 (1991); and Grant v.GAF Corp., 415 Pa.Super. 137, 608 A.2d 1047 (1992), affirmed, 536 Pa. 429, 639 A.2d 1170 (1994).) My reasons for disagreement follow. First, I must disagree with the majority’s rationale for distinguishing these four cases. The majority opines that “if the employee [in the four cases cited supra] cannot meet the lesser burden of proof required in the workmen’s [sic] compensation action, then he should not be given another opportunity to prevail in a civil action.” (Majority opinion at 507.) The identical argument could, however, be raised instantly: 96); Liberty Baking Co. v. Com., W.C.A.B., 63 Pa.Cmwlth. 517, , 439 A.2d 1276, 1279 (1981) . Likewise, I cannot agree with the distinction
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the federal expert witness compensation rules are in direct conflict with the state rules even when the state rules allow for a greater recovery
B. holding that pleadings under the rico act are to be liberally construed
C. holding that pro se pleadings are to be liberally construed
D. holding that the rules governing pleading in a workmens compensation case do not mirror the pennsylvania rules of civil procedure and that pleadings in compensation cases should be liberally construed
E. holding that pro se pleadings will be liberally construed
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.