Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
are based on different relation back doctrines and wrongful death statutes. However, multiple states, as well as cases based on the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which have similar “conduct, transaction, or occurrence” language in their relation back doctrines, have supported wrongful death claims relating back to the filing of the original complaint. See Lewin v. Am. Export Lines, Inc., 224 F.R.D. 389, 398 (N.D.Ohio 2004) (“Here, Plaintiffs seek to add a new claim, i.e. wrongful death, arising from the asbestos exposure asserted in the original Complaints. Based on the standard set forth in Rule 15(c)(2) and Sixth Circuit case law, this claim should ‘relate back’ to the original pleadings.”); Sompolski v. Miller, 239 Ill.App.3d 1087, 180 Ill.Dec. 932, 608 N.E.2d 54, 57-58 (1992) ; In re Olympia Brewing Co. Sec. Litig., 612
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that personal representative may amend personal injury suit to state wrongful death claim following plaintiffs death
B. holding that a wrongful death claim related back to a personal injury claim in an automobile accident case where the wrongful death claim  arose from the same transaction or occurrence as the original complaint and the defendant was advised of the essential facts necessary to prepare his defense even with the added claim
C. holding emotional distress is a distinct claim from wrongful death
D. holding that plaintiffs failure to prove decedents death was caused by the wrongful acts of the defendant precludes any recovery of wrongful death damages under mississippis wrongful death statute
E. recognizing cause of action for wrongful death
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.