Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
Haynor v. General Motors Corp., No. 81539, Dec. 17, 1985. In light of the defendant’s acknowledgment through its representatives LaLonde and Crabill that a “compensable injury” is defined by the workers’ compensation laws (“ ‘compensable injury’ is not defined anywhere in the agreement, but rather, it is defined by the administrative agencies of the state,” LaLonde’s Dep., A.R. 251-52; “[t]he answer to this question [of whether Mr. Haynor’s status was correctly reflected in his employment record”] lies with the Workers Compensation Activity and Labor Relations,” Letter to Russell C. Babcock from Preston M. Crabill, Jan. 25, 2007, Ex. 4 to PL’s Cross Mot. for Summary Jmt. [dkt. # 18]), it is virtually incomprehensible why the defendant would rely on an an 547, 553 (6th Cir.2008) . As noted earlier, the Pension Committee and
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that under erisa a plan administrators decision to deny an employee longterm disability benefits is arbitrary and capricious if the administrator ignores favorable evidence  and selectively reviews the evidence it does consider
B. holding that the plan administrators failure to address the social security administrations finding of the claimants disability rendered the decision arbitrary and capricious
C. holding that a social security disability determination is a legal proceeding
D. holding that a failure of an erisa plan administrator to address the social security administrations determination that claimant is totally disabled is yet another factor that can render the denial of further longterm disability benefits arbitrary and capricious
E. holding that an erisa plan administrator is not bound by an ssa disability determination when reviewing a claim for benefits
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.