Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
reading [of the Act]_This remedial statute reaches beyond “claims” which might be legally enforced, to all fraudulent attempts to cause the Government to pay out sums of money. Id. at 232-33, 88 S.Ct. 959 (quotations and footnote omitted). Here, the Relator has alleged in Counts II, IV, and VI that Parke-Davis has caused the submission of numerous off-label prescription for Neurontin to the Medicaid program through both its fraudulent statements about the safety and efficacy of Neurontin and its system of unlawful financial incentives and kickbacks to doctors who prescribe Neurontin. Defendant does not dispute that an off-label prescription submitted for reimbursement by Medicaid is a false claim within the meaning of the FCA. Cf Peterson v. Weinberger, 508 F.2d 45, 52 (5th Cir.) , cert. denied sub nom. Peterson v. Mathews,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that knowing submission of medicare claims for services that are not covered and payable under the medicare act is a violation of the fca
B. holding that county of delaware was not a person for purposes of fca liability
C. holding that the treating physician rule applies in a ease where a plaintiff sought reimbursement for air ambulance services under medicare part b
D. holding that because negligence and breach of fiduciary duty claims are covered by the martin act these claims must be dismissed
E. recognizing that information disclosed in private is not a public disclosure under the fca
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.