Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
54 L.Ed.2d 648 (1978). With this caveat in mind and after careful review of the record, we conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in impliedly ruling that the plaintiffs’ claims were not frivolous, unreasonable, without foundation, groundless, or brought in bad faith or for the purpose of harassment. All defendants initially argued the plaintiffs’ antitrust claims were frivolous, unreasonable, without foundation, and brought in bad faith based on the immunity provided by HCQIA and TMPA. But, not all of the plaintiffs’ claims relied upon actions allegedly taken in the context of a peer review or medical committee; therefore, any immunity under HCQIA and TMPA did not entirely shield the defendants from liability. See Austin v. McNamara, 979 F.2d 728, 738 (9th Cir.1992) ; Jeung, 264 F.Supp.2d at 574 (holding that
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that evidence of other allegations of torture was inadmissible in part because it was not similar to the allegations made by defendant
B. holding that allegations of refusal to provide coverage and that other physicians openly attacked plaintiffdoctors before nurses and in neurosurgical group meetings cannot be brought within hcqias immunity
C. holding that none of the physicians insurers had a duty to provide coverage since the effects of the negligence first manifested themselves prior to the coverage periods of any of the three policies
D. holding that a bivens claim cannot be brought against a federal agency
E. holding that issue not raised in first appeal cannot be attacked in later appeal
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.