Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
Collectively, Drs. Dionee and Zacharia’s conclusions, the “functional capacity evaluation,” and Hartford’s “employability analysis report” supported the decision that Maninger was no longer totally disabled. This evidence provided a reasonable basis for Hartford’s decision. AFFIRMED. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. 1 . See Nord v. Black & Decker Disability Plan, 356 F.3d 1008, 1009-10 (9th Cir.2004) (citing standard of review); Alford v. DCH Group Long-Term Disability Plan, 311 F.3d 955, 957 (9th Cir.2002). 2 . See Nord, 356 F.3d at 1009-10. 3 . Id. at 1010. 4 . Black & Decker Disability Plan v. Nord, 538 U.S. 822, 834, 123 S.Ct. 1965, 155 L.Ed.2d 1034 (2003) . 5 . Jordan v. Northrop Grumman Corp. Welfare
```
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. holding that courts have no warrant to require administrators automatically to accord special weight to the opinions of a claimants physician
C. holding that the decision of whether to accord greater weight to contemporaneous medical records or later given testimony is uniquely within the purview of the special master
D. holding that erisa does not require plan administrators to give special deference to treating physicians opinions
E. holding that reviewing court should accord deference to special masters decision and may not substitute its own judgment for that of the special master
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.