Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
may recover twice or more for some elements of damages— one from the tortfeasor who caused the harm and again from any source of benefits collateral to the tortfeasor. Such multiple recovery, however, is the by-product of the rule and not a principle of the rule itself nor a policy at the foundation of the rule.” J. Kircher, “Insurer Subrogation in Wisconsin: The Good Hands (Or A Neighbor) in Another’s Shoes,” 71 Marq. L. Rev. 33, 51-52 (1987). “The types of payments that typically come within the collateral source rule include insurance proceeds, medical benefits, and payments made by an employer pursuant to a statutory compensation scheme.” (Emphasis added.) Rametta v. Stella, 214 Conn. 484, 490, 572 A.2d 978 (1990); see also Apuzzo v. Seneco, 178 Conn. 230, 233, 423 A.2d 866 (1979) ; Healy v. White, 173 Conn. 438, 448, 378 A.2d
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding  1001 prosecution for false statements in unemployment benefits not precluded by unemployment benefits statute specifically addressing topic
B. holding that medical expenses and wages paid pursuant to employment contract were collateral sources and that defendant could not reduce personal injury damages because of such benefits
C. holding that unemployment compensation benefits received by plaintiff are collateral source and that defendant could not reduce personal injury damages because of such benefits
D. holding that the consideration of the fact that claimant collected unemployment benefits while he was allegedly disabled was not a ground for reversal where there was other medical and vocational evidence supporting denial of benefits and claimants receipt of unemployment benefits was not decisive factor in denial of benefits
E. holding that pursuant to statute unemployment benefits must be offset against workers compensation payments
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.