Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
by the FTCA, which only allows compensatory damages. St. John v. United States, No. CIV 97-3051 at 34 (citing FTCA, 28 U.S.C. § 2674); see 28 U.S.C. § 2674 n. 22 (“damages are determined by law of state where the tortious act was committed, subject to limitations that United States shall not be liable for ... punitive damages”). The district court awarded $3,000 in compensatory damages based on St. John’s discomfort and inability to sleep while in custody, even though bunks, a bathroom, and a sink were available in the cell. Id. at 35. The district court found no credible evidence of physical injuries and could not award damages for mental or emotional suffering under South Dakota law. Id. at 34 (citing Nelson v. WEB Water Development Assoc., Inc., 507 N.W.2d 691, 698-99 (S.D.1993) ). Nothing in the record suggests that St. John
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a tort claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress is distinct from a claim for emotional distress damages under the employment discrimination statute
B. holding that act did not bar intentional infliction of emotional distress claim
C. recognizing torts of intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress
D. holding that under south dakota law compensation for negligent infliction of emotional distress requires manifestation of physical symptoms and intentional infliction of emotional distress requires an extreme disabling emotional response
E. recognizing the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.