Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
Ass’n, 76 S.W.3d 162, 167 (Tex.App.2002) (stating that “[t]he phrase ‘unless otherwise provided’ or similar language, when used in a statute, usually refers to other statutes pertaining to the same subject matter” (reversed in part on other grounds, 141 S.W.3d 158 (Tex.2004))); Cook v. Turner, 219 Conn. 641, 644, 593 A.2d 504, 505 (1991) (concluding that the word “law” in the phrase “[ejxcept as otherwise provided by law” is “limited to state and federal statutes”); Oregon County R-IV Sch. Dist. v. LeMon, 739 S.W.2d 553, 557 (Mo.Ct.App.1987) (stating that “ ‘ “except as otherwise provided by law,” means except as otherwise provided by statute’ ” (quoting Yates v. Casteel, 329 Mo. 1101, 1104, 49 S.W.2d 68, 69 (1932))); Manchin v. Browning, 170 W.Va. 779, 785, 296 S.E.2d 909, 915 (1982) ; Trujillo v. Tanuz, 85 N.M. 35, 40, 508 P.2d
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding unenforceable a regulation that would have provided greater workers compensation benefits than permitted by statute
B. holding that based upon means similar to or supported by
C. holding that georgia refund statute signifies state waiver of immunity only to the extent provided by the express terms of the statute
D. holding that the phrase provided by law means prescribed or provided by statute
E. holding a party was limited to recovery provided for by the strict terms of the mechanics lien statute
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.