With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". this Court has suggested that while the considerations bearing on the weight to be accorded a treating physician’s opinion are not necessarily identical in the disability and Medicare contexts, we would expect the Secretary to place significant reliance on the informed opinion of a treating physician and either to apply the treating physician rule, with its component of ‘some extra weight’ to be accorded that opinion, ... or to supply a reasoned basis, in conformity with statutory purposes, for declining to do so. State of New York v. Sullivan, 927 F.2d 57, 60 (2d Cir.1991). It is therefore more than possible that some version of the treating physician rule could well apply in Medicare cases. See, e.g., Klementowski v. Secretary, Deft of HHS, 801 F.Supp. 1022, 1025-26 (W.D.N.Y.1992) (<HOLDING>). Even if the treating physician rule did apply

A: holding that the knowing submission of medicare claims for services that were not covered and payable under the medicare act was an fca violation
B: holding that the treating physician rule applies in a ease where a plaintiff sought reimbursement for air ambulance services under medicare part b
C: holding as a matter of first impression that the treating physician rule is applicable in the context of a disability benefits determination under erisa
D: holding that knowing submission of medicare claims for services that are not covered and payable under the medicare act is a violation of the fca
B.