Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
an express preemption provision, implied preemption principles should not be used to decide the preemptive scope of a statute in which Congress provided an express preemption provision. Cipollone, — U.S. at -, 112 S.Ct. at 2618. See also Freightliner, — U.S. at -, 115 S.Ct. at 1488. Second, Smith is factually distinguishable from the instant case because it considered the preemptive scope of the MDA’s Class II regulations on a state regulatory statute. Smith, 651 F.2d at 1022 (citing Fla.Stat. §§ 468.135(7); 468.136(l)-(2)). Third and most importantly, the result in Smith relies on the fact “that the Florida statute does not relate ‘to a matter included in a federal requirement applicable to a device.’ ” Smith, 651 F.2d at 1025 (quoting 21 U.S.C.A. § 360k(a)(2)). See also id. at 1024 . In other words, Smith found that the state
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding the state law claims were not preempted
B. holding that the legislature intends different meanings when it uses different terms in a statute
C. holding that it is not
D. holding that  4681357 is not preempted because it addresses a different concern than does the mda
E. holding that the plaintiffs had relied on illinois law because they could have filed in a different forum having a different statute of limitations
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.