Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
District of Columbia embodies “a preference for the testimony of treating physicians over doctors retained for litigation purposes,” the hearing examiner nonetheless “may choose to credit the testimony of a non-treating physician over a treating physician.” Short v. District of Columbia Dep’t of Employment Servs., 723 A.2d 845, 851 (D.C.1998). Particularly is that so if “the contradicting medical evidence from the employer was from a doctor who examined” the claimant, King v. W.C.A.B. (Wendell H. Stone Co.), 132 Pa. Cmwlth. 292, 572 A.2d 845, 846 (1990) (cited in Stewart v. District of Columbia Dep’t of Employment Sens., 606 A.2d 1350, 1353 (D.C.1992)), and, in any case, the hearing examiner must explain his decision to credit the one opinion over the other. See Short, supra, at 851 . Although an agency as finder of fact
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. recognizing examiners right to discredit treating physicians opinion but remanding for explanation where examiner did not mention opinions of those physicians
B. holding that the district court did not have jurisdiction and remanding the matter to state court
C. holding that challenge to vietnam war did not necessarily raise political question and remanding
D. holding that treating a defendants failure to appear as a waiver not only of the right to be present but of the right to have a hearing on the motion was error
E. recognizing substantial body of authority from other states and the federal courts holding that fatiguerelated injuries can be compensable in some circumstances but remanding case for explanation why contrary precedent within jurisdiction was not followed
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.