With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". to provide supplemental briefing on whether Nelson could still pursue a workers' compensation claim. The parties agreed that he could. We do not decide this issue because Alaska Concrete was not a party in the superior court or this appeal. 44 . Ben Lomond, Inc. v. Municipality of Anchorage, 761 P.2d 119, 122 (Alaska 1988). 45 . Baxley v. State, 958 P.2d 422, 428 (Alaska 1998). 46 . See State v. Native Vill. of Nunapitchuk, 156 P.3d 389, 405 (Alaska 2007) (distinguishing between facial and as-applied constitutional challenges). 47 . We acknowledge that it has been more than two years since Nelson was injured, but this does not necessarily preclude him from receiving benefits under the workers' compensation act. See Jonathan v. Doyon Drilling, Inc., 890 P.2d 1121, 1125 (Alaska 1995) (<HOLDING>). Here, Nelson did not file a written claim for

A: holding that twoyear period for requesting hearing after employers controversion only applies to employees written claim for workers compensation benefits
B: holding that court would not imply a statutory cause of action for employers interference in employees assertion of claim for compensation
C: holding that the twoyear statute of limitations set forth in indcode  341221 governs employees claim that he was discharged in retaliation for filing a workers compensation claim
D: holding that a twoyear statute of limitations period applies to all  1983 actions brought in pennsylvania
A.