instruction:
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.
question:
reasons for his back problems, reasons that Anderson, given his attitude toward work and pain, apparently accepted without question. Considering the evidence as a whole, I conclude that substantial evidence does not support a conclusion that Anderson did know or should have known he had a compensable injury which needed to be reported to Frontier until Drs. Gallagher and Pinto provided reports to Anderson's attorney in April or May 2009. It was these reports that first established a relationship between Anderson's injury and his work for Frontier. Therefore, I would hold that the letter sent by Anderson's attorney on May 13, 2009, constituted timely notice to Frontier under the statute and our case law. 1 . Gillette v. Harold, Inc., 257 Minn. 313, 320-22, 101 N.W.2d 200, 205-06 (1960) (<HOLDING>). 2 . A worker may qualify for social security
Holding statements: (A) holding that when an employee suffers an injury from an unexplained fall while the employee is on the job and performing the duties of his employment that injury is eligible for compensation under the workers compensation act (B) recognizing the natural consequences flowing from a compensable injury absent an independent intervening cause are compensable as well as the aggravation of a preexisting condition infirmity or disease by a workrelated injury (C) holding that when a preexisting infirmity is aggravated by repetitive minute trauma as a result of the ordinary and necessary duties of employment the disability resulting from such aggravation is compensable as a personal injury under the workers compensation statute (D) recognizing that a preexisting disease or infirmity of the employee does not disqualify a claim arising out of employment if the employment aggravated accelerated or combined with the disease or infirmity to produce disability for which compensation is sought (E) holding that psychological conditions resulting from workrelated trauma are compensable
answer:
holding that when an employee suffers an injury from an unexplained fall while the employee is on the job and performing the duties of his employment that injury is eligible for compensation under the workers compensation act

question:
Executone Info. Sys., Inc. v. Davis, 26 F.3d 1314, 1320 (5th Cir.1994))). 17 . See Executone, 26 F.3d at 1320 ("We must sustain an arbitration award even if we disagree with the arbitrator's interpretation of the underlying contract as long as the arbitrator's decision 'draws its essence' from the contract." (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). 18 . See also Parsons & Whittemore, 744 F.2d at 1483-84 (recounting that the arbitration panel awarded postjudgment interest at state statutory rate). 19 . We construe the parties' intentions "generously" to determine whether they agreed to arbitrate a particular issue. See Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc., 473 U.S. 614, 626, 105 S.Ct. 3346, 87 L.Ed.2d 444 (1985). 20 . Cf. Newmont, 615 F.3d at 1272, 1276 (<HOLDING>). 21 . Riebesell, 586 F.3d at 794;
Holding statements: (A) holding that court should consider issues relating to making and performance of agreement to arbitrate (B) holding that because the parties agreed to arbitrate and both placed the issue before the arbitrator the issue of consolidation was for the arbitrator (C) holding that because the parties agreed to arbitrate the particular issue any doubt about who should decide the consolidation issue was resolved in favor of the arbitrator (D) holding that companys contention that union repudiated the agreement to arbitrate a particular dispute was a matter for the arbitrator and not the court to decide (E) holding that agreement to arbitrate any dispute arising out of contract authorized arbitrator to decide postjudgment interest issues
answer:
holding that court should consider issues relating to making and performance of agreement to arbitrate

question:
in the District Court for the Northern District of Iowa dismissing his 42 U.S.C. 1983 action under 28 U.S.C. 1915A(b). For the reasons discussed below, we affirm in part and reverse in part. In his pro se complaint, Berge named Estherville Law Enforcement Center (ELEC) Investigator Greg VanLangen, ELEC Sergeant Brett Shatto, ELEC Chief Eric Milburn, and Emmet County Sheriff Larry Lamack. He alleged that VanLangen arrested him based on evidence "that was false and unconstitutionally acquired," that the evidence was derived from "a non-testimonial identification procedure," and that VanLangen filed a sworn affidavit which contained false information received from a confidential informant, which led to Berge's arrest, all in violation of Iowa state laws and the F -12 (8th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>); Burk v. Beene, 948 F.2d 489, 494-95 (8th Cir.
Holding statements: (A) holding that false arrest supports a claim against state police under 1983 because it violates the fourth amendment (B) holding allegation that false affidavit was basis for arrest warrant is sufficient to state 1983 fourth amendment claim against affiant officer (C) holding that search warrant which was lacking sufficient description of premises and did not have affidavit attached was not fatally defective when read together with affidavit and when one of officers executing warrant was affiant (D) holding that it was clearly established for 1983 purposes that an arrest founded upon a recalled warrant violates the fourth amendment (E) recognizing that allegation of state action is a necessary element of a 1983 claim
answer:
holding that false arrest supports a claim against state police under 1983 because it violates the fourth amendment