Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
Fund, 900 F.2d 1138, 1142 (7th Cir.1990). Here, the above-factors weigh in UNUM’s favor. When UNUM’s plan administrator decided to terminate Reagan’s benefits, he had before him the following evidence to support his conclusion: (1) the fact that Dr. Kurkjian could find no objective evidence that Reagan suffered from any cardiac disease; (2) the fact that neither Dr. Kurkjian nor Dr. Laping believed that any restrictions or limitations upon Reagan’s wo agree regarding Reagan’s medical condition and ability to work, such a disagreement does not support a finding of arbitrary and capricious . In fact, reasoned differences among qualified medical experts preclude such a finding. See Smith v. Office of Civilian Health and Med. Program of Uniformed Servs., 97 F.3d 950, 959 (7th Cir.1996) ; see also Ladd v. ITT Corp., 148 F.3d 753, 756
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that an aljs own medical analysis which is contrary to medical evidence is invalid
B. holding that plaintiffs claim that medical providers did not comply with baker act was not subject to medical malpractice statutes ajlthough a medical diagnosis is necessary in order to involuntarily commit a patient the process of complying with the statute does not require medical skill or judgment
C. holding that the writ may not issue merely because a federal court finds that a state courts decision was erroneous or incorrect 
D. holding that widespread disagreement among qualified medical experts over a medical issue virtually precludes a reviewing court from concluding that an agency decision that agrees with one side is arbitrary or plainly wrong even if the court finds other views more persuasive
E. holding that the plaintiffs experts were not qualified to offer a medical opinion as to the cause of death because they are not physicians nor otherwise properly qualified to offer a medical opinion
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.