With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". member, should be separated from the decision on the class action claim, and resolved by the Administration, but guided by this Court’s decision on the merits of the class claim. Any declaratory or injunctive relief granted will thus differentiate between the class-wide claim and the individual claims. The advantages to class-wide resolution of issues such as the one presented here are apparent when noting that three other district courts have decided against the Administration in individual actions by children such as the Andres, and the Commissioner has continued denying such claims. See Agee v. Sullivan, 1991 WL 193636 (N.DAla. Mar. 29, 1991) (citing McAninch and holding that the largest payment possible should be given to the child); McAninch v. Bowen, 693 F.Supp. 353 (W.D.Pa.1988) (<HOLDING>); see also Reinkraut v. Shalala, 854 F.Supp.

A: holding that because the plaintiff was not disabled for the purposes of the ada this court need not to address the other elements of the prima facie case
B: holding that employees requests for accommodation were not protected activity because the evidence did not show that he had a reasonable good faith belief that he was disabled or perceived as disabled
C: holding that congress did not intend to prevent children from voluntarily terminating entitlement to benefits under the account of one disabled parent in order to apply on the account of the other disabled parent
D: holding that an employer did not regard the plaintiff as disabled
C.