Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
began running on October 16, 2003. Our resolution of this dispute depends upon our construction of the legal disability statute. Initially, we reiterate that [o]ur approach to statutory construction begins with the statute’s language, and if it can end there — with our finding of a clear meaning of the Legislature’s intent — then we must stop. “Our search for a statute’s purpose begins with the words of the statute itself. If the statute is unambiguous, we need only to enforce the statute as writtenf,]” with no recourse to the broader statutory scheme, legislative history, historical background, or other external sources of the Legislature’s purpose. Galaway v. Schucker, 193 S.W.3d 509, 516 (Tenn.2005) (quoting In re Conservatorship of Clayton, 914 S.W.2d 84, 90 (Tenn.Ct.Ap 14 (1975) ; O’Brien v. Mass. Bay Transp. Auth., 405 Mass.
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the statute of limitations for an attorney malpractice suit did not begin to run until the client had suffered some actual damage
B. holding the statute of limitations does not begin to run until the owning spouse reaches a pay status
C. holding that a notice of claim period did not begin to run until discovery of the injury
D. holding that statute of limitations did not begin to run against a non compos mentis individual in spite of interested parties being available to bring suit
E. holding that the statute of limitations for attorney malpractice may begin to run before the plaintiff knows the full extent of his damages
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.