Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
the parties, as well as the court, repeatedly refer to the case as a wrongful death suit. On the other hand, the types of damages sought by Phillips suggest she might have meant to bring both wrongful death and survival actions. Importantly, however, Phillips never refers to herself or any of the plaintiffs as personal representatives of the Decedent’s estate, nor does she clearly assert that she is in fact the Decedent’s executor or administrator. Under Mississippi's general survivorship statute, only executors, administrators, and temporary administrators may bring a survival action. Miss Code Ann. § 91-7-233 (1994). Thus, without alleging the appropriate legal status, Phillips could not have brought a survival action. See Berryhill v. Nichols, 171 Miss. 769, 158 So. 470, 471 (1935) . Because Phillips could only have brought this
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the district court erred by not permitting defense counsel to argue to the jury that the governments case was weakened by a lack of evidence allegedly caused by its failure to investigate
B. holding that personal representative may amend personal injury suit to state wrongful death claim following plaintiffs death
C. holding that recovery for pain and suffering of deceased allegedly caused by the negligence of doctor can only be had in suit by personal representative and not by next of kin or heirs at law
D. holding that delay caused by or consented to by a defendant is not unreasonable
E. holding that there was no evidence in the record to support appellants contention that the doctor committed a separate act of negligence by continuing to prescribe coumadin and that the doctors alleged failure to correct any previous negligence does not constitute additional acts of negligence
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.