Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
Reply at 4 (internal citation omitted). (EOF No. 79.) In contrast, Plaintiff cites to Dellaripa, which states that Van Beeck’s holding logically extends to survival actions. The Court agrees with the reasoning in Dellaripa, and this Court does not construe Dooley to supersede Dellaripa. First, the Court notes that the categories of beneficiaries established in sections 51 and 59 are identical. Accordingly, this Court would be in direct conflict with Van Beeck if it determined that the estate of a statutory beneficiary qualified as a “new” class of beneficiary. Second, other courts have reached similar conclusions about the sur-vivorship of claims where the named beneficiary dies during the pendency of the action. See, e.g., White v. United States, 543 F.3d 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2008) . Finally, it would be an especially absurd and
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the cause of action under fela vests in the personal representative of the estate not in the beneficiaries
B. recognizing property of the estate to include the estates chose in action against its auditor
C. holding that erisa benefits are not property of the estate
D. holding that the claims to a statutory benefit had not yet vested when the legislature eliminated the benefit
E. holding that even though estates are not among the beneficiaries enumerated in the public safety officers benefits act the estate of a claimant who died before her claim had been processed could collect the statutory benefit
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.