Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
regarding workers' compensation benefits, in turn promoting litigation and unduly delaying receipt of any benefits. See Tenorio v. State, 931 P.2d 234, 240 (Wyo.1997) (expressing concern that application of collateral estoppel to permanent disabi 54, "4 (N.H.2001) (declining to apply issue preclusion where agency awarded benefits for temporary disability but made no finding as to permanent disability); Appeal of Hooker, 142 N.H. 40, 694 A.2d 984, 986-88 (1997) (finding collateral estoppel inapplicable even where alleged injury giving rise to both proceedings is the same and allegedly flows from same work-related injury because issue of causation determined in TTD hearing is different from issue of causation relevant to subsequent medical benefits hearing); Tenorio, 931 P.2d at 240 . Because an employer always risks an award of
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that workers compensation statutes do not prohibit claimant from receiving permanent partial disability benefits from prior accident concurrently with temporary total disability benefits from subsequent injury
B. holding that the trial courts authority to initiate workers compensation benefits before the final adjudication was not divested by the legislature and was consistent with the stated purpose of the workers compensation act
C. recognizing the inherent policy problems associated with applying issue preclusion to permanent disability proceedings and construing wyomings workers compensation act as inconsistent with the doctrine in that context
D. holding that the parties choiceoflaw agreement as relating to workers compensation was appropriately avoided where it offended state public policy as reflected in express provisions of the pennsylvania workers compensation act
E. holding without applying the doctrine of judicial estoppel that the plaintiff who made sworn statements of total disability in a social security disability application and then testified at her deposition that she was not totally disabled failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether she was a qualified individual with a disability within the meaning of the ada
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.