With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". However, we believe that the ALJ’s limited reliance on the PRFCA was harmless because it was not the sole basis for his conclusion. The ALJ also relied upon substantial objective medical evidence that contradicted the opinions of Drs. Pascual and Gates, Humphreys’ treating physicians. First, the objective diagnostic findings of record contradicted the treating physicians’ opinions. In particular, Humphreys completed an exercise stress test in June 2001, performing at a level of at least 10.1 METS. See Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairments, 170-71 (American Medical Association, ed. 4th ed.1995) (explaining that patients who can exercise from 7 to 16 METS are classified as having no resulting limitations); see also Moore v. Sullivan, 919 F.2d 901, 904 (5th Cir.1990) (<HOLDING>). Notably, Humphreys was able to exercise for

A: holding that 101 mets is more than enough for the performance of light work
B: holding that more than notice to a defendant is required
C: holding an attorney does not have a duty to insure or guarantee that the most favorable outcome possible and because no amount of work can guarantee a favorable result attorneys would never know when the work they do is sufficiently more than adequate to be enough to protect not only their clients from error but themselves from liability
D: recognizing that in the usual case no information or evidence comes to light more than one year after imposition of sentence
A.