Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
irrelevant which of these two models is more elegant from a conceptual standpoint. What is important — indeed, determinative — for our inquiry is which of the two each state has adopted. Pennsylvania's high court unambiguously has held that Pennsylvania law supports no cause of action for increased risk of cancer or for present emotional distress arising from the fear of cancer. Thus, the court's statement about medical monitoring damages is best viewed as the authorization of a distinct cause of action for medical monitoring expenses. Reading the opinion otherwise would defy its plain language regarding Pennsylvania's nonrecognition of increased risk and emotional distress causes of action. 75 . See, e.g., Burns v. Jaquays Mining Corp., 156 Ariz. 375, 752 P.2d 28, 29-31 (Ct.App.1987) , review dismissed, 162 Ariz. 186, 781 P.2d
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that damages resulting from directors misconduct destroying the value of the corporate stock does not qualify as a direct or personal injuiy to a shareholder and will not support a tort action
B. holding that not all adverse action taken against a public employee in retaliation for exercising first amendment rights is sufficient to support a cause of action under  1983
C. recognizing cause of action
D. recognizing the cause of action
E. holding that subclinical asbestosrelated injuiy is not sufficient to support cause of action
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.