Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
days. We have held that an insurer or self-insured employer’s failure to serve the denial on a claimant’s attorney may be such “good cause.” See, e.g., Freres Lumber Co. v. Jegglie, 106 Or App 27, 806 P2d 164 (1991); Cowart v. SAIF, 94 Or App 288, 765 P2d 226 (1988). See also ORS 656.331(l)(b) (setting forth situations in which insurers and self-insured employers may not contact claimants without also contacting their attorneys); OAR 436-060-0015 (same). The legislature has not created any similar mechanism with respect to ORS 656.295(8). If a petition for judicial review is not filed before the order becomes final, we lack the authority to consider why the petition was not timely. Cf. Pease v. National Council on Comp. Ins., 113 Or App 26, 29, 830 P2d 605, rev den 314 Or 391 (1992) . 10 Because of that “slippage” between the
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the notice of appeal filed after the district court entered judgment as to one defendant but before the court dismissed the claims against the other defendants would have become effective when those defendants were later dismissed
B. holding that agency properly dismissed appeal not filed within statutory time limit where the legislature has not chosen to provide a way around the limitation for those who were unable to meet it for some reason
C. holding that this court has jurisdiction when the appellant has filed a docketing statement indicating an intent to appeal a particular order within the time for filing an appeal
D. holding that tenday time limit to appeal is both mandatory and jurisdictional and an appellate court has no jurisdiction over an untimely filed appeal
E. holding that a statutory right is a creature of the legislature and does not exist where the legislature has not acted
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.