Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
and (2) “where the complainant has been induced or tricked by his adversary’s misconduct into allowing the filing deadline to pass.” Irwin, 498 U.S. at 96, 111 S.Ct. 453; see also Bailey, 160 F.3d at 1364. A careful study of Supreme Court precedent, as well as that of the regional circuits, however, reveals that equitable tolling is available in a variety of circumstances, including when a party has been mentally incapacitated. The Supreme Court has yet to address whether mental illness can justify equitable tolling. In Irwin, an employment discrimination case, petitioner claimed that the 30-day period prescribed in 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16(c) should be tolled because his attorney was out of the country and did not, therefore, personally receive the relevant n 1177, 1180 (6th Cir.1995) ; Miller v. Runyon, 77 F.3d 189, 191 (7th
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. recognizing attorneys mental illness as grounds for relief under rule 60b6
B. holding that attorneys mental illness may justify equitable tolling
C. holding that 29 cfr  1614105a1 is subject to equitable tolling based on mental illness
D. holding that where client was abandoned by attorney due to attorneys mental illness equitable tolling may be appropriate
E. holding that mental incapacity is an extraordinary circumstance that may warrant equitable tolling
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.