Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
Notably, the rule prohibiting interlocutory appeals prevents the “delay and expense from fragmentary appeals” and “expedite^] the administration of justice.” See Berger v. Berger, 67 N.C. App. 591, 595, 313 S.E.2d 825, 828, (citing Shaver, 54 N.C. App. at 486, 283 S.E.2d at 526), disc. review denied, 311 N.C. 303, 317 S.E.2d 678 (1984). Here, the Commission reserved both the issue of the extent of Mr. Thomas’s temporary disability, if any, after 13 November 2008 and the issue of his permanent partial disability for future resolution. Its Opinion and Award with respect to causation and temporary total disability compensation from October 2007 until November 2008 was clearly interlocutory. See Watts v. Hemlock Homes of Highlands, Inc., 160 N.C. App. 81, 84, 584 S.E.2d 97, 99 (2003) . While we certainly agree with the parties’
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the record supported the district courts award of damages
B. holding that where the commissions opinion and award had yet to determine the total amount of compensation and there was nothing in the record to indicate that the parties had resolved this issue independently since the commission entered its opinion and award that the appeal was clearly interlocutory
C. holding that an attorneys fees award is not appealable until the amount of the award is set
D. holding a medical opinion to be not significantly probative where the opinion was contrary to other substantial record evidence
E. holding that an appeal may be taken from an award of attorneys fees only after that award is independently final  which means after the district judge had decided how much must be paid
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.