Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
the amended sworn notice of claim. The parties have not yet presented their case to the screening panel or conducted any discovery. Frame promptly filed the amended sworn notice of claim, within four months of the original filing. Frame has not yet sought to file a complaint for professional negligence, and the now-sworn notice provides the Hospital with a basis for a perjury action against Frame. [¶ 19] Further, permitting an amended notice of claim to cure the defect caused by the unsworn notice is consistent with the purposes of the MHSA. An amendment that cures a technical defect fulfills the statutory objectives of deciding claims on their merits and encouraging the early withdrawal of meritless claims. See 24 M.R.S. § 2851(1); see also Dutil v. Burns, 1997 ME 1, ¶ 5, 687 A.2d 639 . Permitting Frame to assert her claim under
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. recognizing that dismissal of claim for a failure to comply with the statutory prerequisites for maintaining an action for professional negligence  is akin to a dismissal for insufficient service of process or lack of subject matter jurisdiction and does not serve as an adjudication of the merits
B. holding that under federal law the dismissal of a claim as timebarred is adjudication of merits for purposes of res judicata
C. holding dismissal for failure to comply with rule 8 was dismissal of entire action which was appealable final order
D. holding after we found standing following a district courts dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction that the merits will be for the district court to decide on remand
E. holding that dismissal for failure to comply with discovery orders is on the merits
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.