Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
trial. In Mattos v. Thompson, 491 Pa. 385, 421 A.2d 190, 196 (1980), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held unconstitutional a statute which gave health care arbitration panels original jurisdiction over medical malpractice claims. The court based its decision on statistical evidence that the delays involved in processing claims under the statutory procedures oppressively burdened the right of a jury trial so as to “ ‘make the right practically unavailable,’ ” concluding that the actual operation of the arbitration procedure was not “ ‘reasonably designed to effectuate the desired objective’ of affording ‘the plaintiff a swifter adjudication of his claim, at a minimal cost.’ ” Id. 421 A.2d at 195 (quoting Parker v. Children’s Hosp. of Philadelphia, 483 Pa. 106, 394 A.2d 932, 939 (1978) ). In concluding, the court narrowed its
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that an infringement on the right to vote necessarily causes irreparable harm
B. holding that statute was too new to determine whether its actual operation resulted in unconstitutional infringement on jury trial right
C. recognizing the right to waive a jury trial
D. holding that trial court erred by granting a directed verdict on statute of limitations defense and remanding for a new trial on the statute of limitations only
E. holding that even though new jersey supreme court found that state antidiscrimination law did not entitle party to jury trial in state court jury trial was still provided as matter of right in federal court
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.