Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
Inc., 120 F.3d 50, 52 (5th Cir.1997), we held that an individual who was permanently blind in one eye was not substantially limited in the major life activity of seeing because he could see well enough with the other eye to engage in most typical activities.. And in Robinson v. Global Marine Drilling Co., 101 F.3d 35, 37 (5th Cir.1996), we held that an individual who suffered from asbestosis, which impairment had reduced his lung capacity to 50% of normal and had caused him to experience shortness of breath and difficulty climbing stairs, was not substantially limited in the major life activity of breathing. See also Dutcher v. Ingalls Shipbuilding, 53 F.3d 723, 726 & n. 11 (5th Cir.1995), and Rogers v. International Marine Terminals, Inc., 87 F.3d 755, 759 (5th Cir.1996) . Additionally, we note that Deas' claim is
```
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 evidence of a 13 permanent partial disability insufficient to establish disability for purposes of ada
C. holding that determination of causation in permanent disability hearing not barred by estoppel because wlhether an industrial accident caused temporary total disability or permanent partial disability are two distinct questions
D. holding that disability pension benefits could be offset against both temporary and total permanent disability compensation benefits
E. holding that a totally disabled claimant whose preexisting osteoarthritis was temporarily aggravated by her employment was entitled to temporary total disability benefits but not permanent total disability benefits because there was no causal connection between the temporary aggravation and the permanent disability
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.