Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
entitled to bring [an] action ... is, at the time the cause of action accrues, within the age of minority or of unsound mind, the person may bring it within the [applicable time limitation], after the disability is removed.” The plaintiff before the court was of unsound mind at the time his cause of action accrued and remained so continuously thereafter. His legal guardians commenced a tort action which the defendants claimed was barred by the applicable statute of limitations, arguing that the plaintiffs disability had been removed by the appointment of his legal guardians. Cir.1985) (assuming that Missouri would apply the general rule that the appointment of a guardian has no effect on tolling); Wayne County Reg’l Educ. Serv. Agency v. Pappas, 56 F.Supp.2d 807, 815 (E.D.Mich.1999) ; Desert State Life Mgt. Servs. v. Ass’n of
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that appointment of guardian over incompetent adult does not remove legal disability so as to halt tolling and commence running of statute of limitations
B. holding that under michigan law it is wellsettled that an individual with a mental disability is the beneficiary of the tolling statute even where his rights have been capably handled by a guardian or an attorney
C. holding that where client was abandoned by attorney due to attorneys mental illness equitable tolling may be appropriate
D. holding that where an individual is deprived of liberty or property interests in violation of article of the state declaration of rights he may enforce those rights by a common law action for damages
E. holding that new yorks statute tolling statute of limitations during a period when a person is under a disability because of infancy is not terminated by acts of guardian or legal representative in taking steps to pursue claims on infants behalf
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.