Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
Walton v. Petway, 833 So.2d 292, 296 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002). There is one exception to the Rivendell rule: a PTD award to a claimant who has not reached psychiatric MMI is not premature if he or she has reached physical MMI and the award is predicated solely on the physical injury. See McFarlane, Ferguson v. Whaley, 641 So.2d 173 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994), cited in Reyes v. Granite Constr. Co., 894 So.2d 274 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004). This exception does not apply here because the final order’s award of PTD is based on the JCC’s determination that a combination of physical and psychiatric conditions rendered Claimant unemployable and entitled to PTD. We REVERSE the compensation award. Claimant may seek PTD benefits again in the future. Cf. Daws Mfg. Co. v. Ostoyic, 756 So.2d 175 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000) . KAHN, C.J., and THOMAS, J„ concur. * A
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding appellant produced no evidence that when she made her complaints to management she ever mentioned that she felt she was being treated unfairly due to her race or sex
B. holding that plaintiff must on his or her own initiative prove that the product reached him or her without substantial change
C. holding that a plaintiff could not show that she engaged in protected activity because she did not present evidence that she informed her employer that her complaints were based on race or age discrimination
D. holding that a claimant could pursue ptd benefits on her physical condition alone as to which she had reached mmi on her psychiatric condition alone after she reached psychiatric mmi or on both again after she reached psychiatric mmi
E. holding that a juror who initially equivocated as to her impartiality could be found impartial after she affirmatively said she thought she could be fair
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.