Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
concealment and notes the Court has said that fraudulent concealment in health care liability claims estops a health-care provider from relying on limitations to bar a plaintiffs claim. Shah v. Moss, 67 S.W.3d 836, 841 (Tex.2001); see also Borderlon v. Peck, 661 S.W.2d 907, 908-09 (Tex.1983). Thus, he notes, we have recognized exceptions to section 74.251’s two-year statute of limitations in limited circumstances even though several of our decisions have characterized the two-year statute of limitations as “absolute.” See Diaz v. Westphal, 941 S.W.2d 96, 99 (Tex.1997) (“We have repeatedly held that section 10.01 [74.251’s predecessor] establishes an absolute two-year statute of limitation for health care liability claims....”); Bala v. Maxwell, 909 S.W.2d 889, 892-93 (Tex.1995) ; see also In re USAA, 307 S.W.3d 299, 310-11
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that under such unique circumstances the five 5 year statute of limitations controls
B. holding that section 1001 controls over the limitations provision of the wrongful death statute
C. holding that materiality necessary element of section 1001
D. recognizing that a specific statute controls over a general one
E. holding that when a statute and a guideline conflict the statute controls
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.