Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
which are identical to the requirements- of Paragraph B of Listing 12.08, and substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s conclusion that Turner did not meet those requirements. Compare 20 C.F.R. pt. 404, subpt. P, app. 1, § 12.07 with id. § 12.08. 3. Substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s determination of Turner’s RFC. The RFC was consistent with the opinion issued by State reviewing psychologist Dr. Heather Barrons, the only medical opinion in the record that addressed Turner’s workplace limitations. Though the ALJ failed to mention Dr. Barrons’ opinion in his decision, any error was harmless as the ALJ’s RFC finding was consistent with her opinion and not contradicted by the opinion of any treating or examining physician. Cf. Marsh v. Colvin, 792 F.3d 1170, 1172-73 (9th Cir. 2015) ; Reddick v. Chater, 157 F.3d 715, 725-27 (9th
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that remand was not required and that the aljs failure to mention treating physicians opinion was harmless error because the alj adopted the treating physicians recommendations
B. holding that an alj may discount a treating physicians opinion where the physician has offered inconsistent opinions
C. holding that where a treating physicians opinion is contradicted by a consulting physician the alj must explain on the record the reasons for rejecting the opinion of the treating physician
D. holding that the alj is free to reject the opinion of any physician when the evidence supports a contrary conclusion
E. holding that the alj erred by failing to mention the contrary opinion of a treating physician
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.