Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
Because GOL § 5-335 is Preempted by the Medicare Act In addition to their core claim for a declaratory judgment regarding the effect of GOL § 5-335 on MA organization reimbursement rights, Plaintiffs also bring a claim for deceptive business practices under New York General Business Law § 349, seeking compensatory damages, enhancement of damages, and attorney’s fees. There is a colorable argument that the exhaustion requirement does not apply to these claims. Courts have held that state tort law claims — even those that “relate to a denial of benefits” — -may not “arise under” the Medicare Act, “especially when th[o]se claims do not seek reimbursement or provision of Medicare benefits.” Kelly v. Advantage Health, Inc., No. CIV A 99-0362, 1999 WL 294796, at *4 (E.D.La. May 11, 1999) ; see also Ardary v. Aetna Health Plans of
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that victims injuries did not arise out of the use of a motor vehicle when the victim received injuries from a gun fired in the vehicle
B. holding action did not arise under the patent laws
C. holding that tort law claim for injuries allegedly sustained because of negligently improper denial of coverage did not arise under act
D. holding that a claim did not arise under a workers compensation law when it stated a right to relief in tort and sought common law damages distinct from statutory compensation scheme
E. holding that the govemment is not liable under the federal tort claims act for injuries to service members where the injuries arise out of or are in the course of activity incident to military service
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.