Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
agree for the doctrine of collateral estoppel to apply, the following four elements must be present: (1) An issue decided in a prior action is identical to one presented in a later action; (2) The prior, action resulted in a final judgment on the merits; (3) The party against whom collateral estoppel is asserted was a party to the prior action, or is in privity with a party to the prior action; and (4) The party against whom collateral estoppel is asserted had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in the prior action. Frederick v. Action Tire Co., 744 A.2d 762, 766 (Pa.Super.Ct.1999). We agree with defendant that decisions of the Worker’s Compensation Appeal Board may preclude relitigation of the same issue, that is the causation of plaintiffs injuries. See, e.g., id. . Plaintiff does not appear to contest this
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that plaintiff who slipped and fell on ice while securing cars on his employers motor vehicle carrier preparing to travel was very close to the vehicle and engaged in a task related to the vehicle and therefore was an occupier of a motor vehicle
B. holding that victims injuries did not arise out of the use of a motor vehicle when the victim received injuries from a gun fired in the vehicle
C. holding that the sensible and popular understanding of what a motor vehicle accident entails necessarily involves the motor vehicle being operated as a motor vehicle 
D. holding that the statutory definition of motor vehicle is not controlling
E. holding that the wcabs decision that an employees motor vehicle accident did not cause his injuries precluded a subsequent tort action on the same issue
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.