Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
evidence supports a finding that Van Winkle did not suffer from disabling pain during the relevant period. To determine whether a claimant suffers from debilitating pain, the court applies the following two-part test announced in Duncan v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 801 F.2d 847, 853 (6th Cir.1986): First, we examine whether there is objective medical evidence of an underlying medical condition. If there is, we then examine: (1) whether objective medical evidence confirms the severity of the alleged pain arising from the condition; or (2) whether the objectively established medical condition is of such a severity that it can reasonably be expected to produce the alleged disabling pain. See also McCormick v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 861 F.2d 998, 1002-03 (6th Cir.1988) . Van Winkle did not suffer from disabling pain
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the bankruptcy reform act effectively overruled wrenn
B. holding the plain legal prejudice test applies to voluntary dismissal under the code
C. holding that the bankruptcy reform act of 1978 publ no 95598 92 stat 2549 precluded dismissal of cases pending before enactment of the reform act in order to refile under the act
D. holding that the plaintiff could bring an asapplied challenge to the bipartisan campaign reform act despite the court upholding the statute on its face
E. holding that the duncan test applies to the reform act of 1984 and to the commissioners superseding regulations on pain
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.