Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
to include all his arguments in one petition. Therefore, we cannot expect that he would have known that the effect of the delay, over which he had no control, would be the loss of his ability to file a petition at all. The facts of this case constitute one of the rare occasions in which equitable tolling under AEDPA is appropriate. The court chose to accommodate the government’s delay in providing King with the voir dire transcripts by issuing a modified scheduling order and in doing so equitably tolled the statute of limitations, given the circumstances of this case. See In re Maughan, 340 F.3d 337, 344 (6th Cir.2003) (ordering time to file extended until the adverse party produced missing documents); Glamer v. United States Dep’t of Veterans Admin., 30 F.3d 697, 701 (6th Cir.1994) . Otherwise, the government could prevent any
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding under the federal tort claims act that plaintiff armed with the facts about the harm done to him is obligated to protect himself by seeking advice in the medical and legal community and to excuse him from promptly doing so by postponing the accrual of his claim would undermine the purpose of the limitations statute
B. holding that because the va failed in a legal duty to glarner by not providing him with the proper form his claim under the federal torts claim act was equitably tolled
C. holding statute of limitations should not be equitably tolled for taxpayer who filed a refund claim after the applicable statute of limitations
D. holding that  2401b of the ftca can be equitably tolled
E. holding that because the pro se plaintiff failed to raise a claim under the rehabilitation act we would not consider this claim for the first time on appeal
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.