In this task, you will be shown a prompt from a judicial decision and multiple holding statements derived from citations following text in a legal decision.  Holdings represent the governing legal rule when the law is applied to a particular set of facts. There are five answer choices for each citing text. The correct answer is the holding statement that corresponds to the citing text. You should write an incorrect option. Even though there exist multiple wrong answers, we only need a single wrong answer. There is a <HOLDING> token in the position of the citing text prompt where the holding statement was extracted.

Input: Consider Input: a work-related injury, taking into account such factors as age, education, training, and mental capacity." Id. at 574; see also Norton v. Industrial Comm'n, 728 P.2d 1025, 1027 (Utah 1986) (per curiam) (listing "age, sex, education, economic and social environment, ... [and] permanent impairment" as factors to be weighed (internal quotation marks omitted)). 120 The fact that an employee returned to work for some period of time following his industrial injury does not automatically preclude him from claiming permanent total disability benefits at a later date if he continues to suffer substantial pain throughout the period of his continued employment or if his industrial injury worsens to the point that he is no longer able to maintain regular employment. See Norton, 728 P.2d at 1027-28 (<HOLDING>). See generally Hoskings v. Industrial Comm'n, 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that disability pension benefits could be offset against both temporary and total permanent disability compensation benefits (B) holding that an employee who returned to work for six years following his workrelated injury could nevertheless obtain permanent total disability benefits and observing that it may be years before the effect of an injury is felt (C) 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 (D) 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 (E) holding that an injury is not within the scope of employment after the employee has left work unless the injury was caused by the employers negligence

Output: holding that disability pension benefits could be offset against both temporary and total permanent disability compensation benefits


Input: Consider Input: aff'd, 683 So.2d 1042 (Ala.1996), cert. denied, 520 U.S. 1171, 117 S.Ct. 1438, 137 L.Ed.2d 545 (1997), quoting Ex parte Wilson, 571 So.2d 1251, 1261 (Ala.1990). In Brooks v. State, 695 So.2d 176 (Ala.Cr.App.1996), aff'd, 695 So.2d 184 (Ala.), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 893, 118 S.Ct. 233, 139 L.Ed.2d 164 (1997), this Court stated: “[A] prosecutor has the right to indicate to the jury those parts of the evidence or testimony presented by the State that the defense has failed to contradict; that process is not an infringement of the defendant’s Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. Duncan v. Stynchcombe, 704 F.2d 1213, 1215-16 (11th Cir.1983); Ex parte McWilliams, 640 So.2d 1015 (Ala.1993); Griffin v. State, 393 So.2d 523, 528 (Ala.Cr.App.1981).” 695 So.2d at 180 (<HOLDING>). “ ‘ “A prosecutor’s statement that the 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that it was permissible for prosecutor to comment on the general failure of the defense to produce any evidence (B) recognizing the right of a defendant to comment upon the failure of the state to produce evidence (C) holding that comment by prosecutor in closing argument that defense counsel did not produce evidence of the defendants innocence was not a comment on the defendants failure to testify (D) holding the prosecutors statements were not an inappropriate comment on the defendants failure to testify but rather a comment on the defendants failure to present convincing evidence to support his defense (E) holding a prosecutor may not comment on a defendants silence

Output: holding that it was permissible for prosecutor to comment on the general failure of the defense to produce any evidence


Input: Consider Input: could not reach the merits of the motion to dismiss,” and “the court of appeals correctly determined that it lacked jurisdiction over [the healthcare defendant’s] appeal.” Id. Since Ogletree, many healthcare defendants have argued that courts of appeal have interlocutory jurisdiction under section 51.104(a)(9), even when a trial court enters an order denying a motion to dismiss which includes a section 74.351(c) order granting an extension, because if a timely served report is “so deficient that it [is] no report,” the trial court has no discretion to grant a thirty-day extension. In McKeever v. Cerny, two doctors appealed an order granting an extension and made such an argument. 266 S.W.3d 451, 454 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 2008, no pet.). The rep (Tex.App.-El Paso 2008, no pet.) (<HOLDING>). In support of his argument that this Court 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that causation section of expert medical report was not eonclusory when read in context of entire report (B) holding that rule was not violated where officer stated he made a report but was unable to find it because there was no report to tender to counsel (C) holding trial court reversibly erred in not permitting appellant to withdraw his plea where court erroneously stated appellant could appeal motion was in fact not dispositive and appellant was entitled to rely on the courts statement (D) holding no jurisdiction when trial court granted extension even though appellants argued expert report was so woefully deficient on necessary elements so as to constitute no report and report was missing experts curriculum vitae (E) holding no jurisdiction where appellant argued report was no report because it failed to mention appellant in any substantive way but trial court found report was merely deficient on element of causation as to appellant and granted extension


Output: holding that causation section of expert medical report was not eonclusory when read in context of entire report