Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
total incapacity but in lieu of all other payments for compensation” indicates that once a claimant receives permanent partial disability benefits he or she is not eligible for any other benefits. The plaintiff responds that this court previously has concluded that a claimant can receive total incapacity benefits after having received permanent partial disability benefits and nothing in the present case requires a departure from this precedent. We agree with the plaintiff, and conclude that in interpreting the language and interrelationship of §§ 31-307, 31-308 (b) and 31-315, we do not write on a clean slate, but are bound by our previous judicial interpretations of this language and the statutory scheme. See Hummel v. Marten Transport, Ltd., 282 Conn. 477, 501, 923 A.2d 657 (2007) . Over the course of the last 100 years, this
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that absent unusual circumstances this court must apply the plain meaning of a statute
B. recognizing that plain meaning does not control where context shows that the parties have assigned an unusual meaning to a term
C. holding that  12z does not require this court to overrule prior judicial interpretations of statutes even if not based on plain meaning rule
D. holding that we must give effect to the plain and ordinary meaning of a statutes language
E. holding that we must give the words in statutes their plain and ordinary meaning
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.