Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
901-950 [1957], for injuries sustained when he fell asleep while driving home after being required to work twenty-six hours without sleep because hazard of journey arose out of and in course of “extraordinary demands of employment”). See Hed v. Brockway Glass Co., 309 Minn. 73, 76 (1976) (affirming compensation award to worker who fell asleep while driving home after being required to work longer hours as bricklayer than generally required); Snowbarger v. Tri-County Elec. Coop., 793 S.W.2d 348, 350 (Mo. 1990) (affirming award of compensation to worker who fell asleep while driving home after being required to work “unusually long overtime hours” of manual labor, eighty-six hours in one hundred hour period). See also Deland v. Hutchings Psychiatric Ctr., 203 A.D. 2d 776, 778 (N.Y. 1994) . In all such cases, however, the employer had
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that state courts failure to discuss or even to be aware of federal precedent does not in itself render the decision contrary to federal law
B. holding that the district court did not have jurisdiction and remanding the matter to state court
C. recognizing substantial body of authority from other states and the federal courts holding that fatiguerelated injuries can be compensable in some circumstances but remanding case for explanation why contrary precedent within jurisdiction was not followed
D. holding that it is axiomatic that remanding a case to state court terminates the jurisdiction of a federal bankruptcy or district court over that case
E. recognizing that although federal precedent was not binding it was persuasive authority
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.