With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". not properly enter a final judgment or grant permanent injunctive relief. D. Appointing a Special Master Before dissolving the preliminary injunction, the district court had considered appointing a special master. In addressing the complex Medicaid issues- presented in this case, the district court may be well-advised to do so, within the bounds of Fed.R.Civ.P. 53. See In re Pearson, 990 F.2d 653, 659-60 (1st Cir.1993) (discussing “some exceptional condition[s]” that could warrant appointment of a special master); United States v. Horton, 622 F.2d 144, 148-49 (5th Cir.1980) (upholding the appointment of a special master in a Medicare reimbursement case presenting complex legal issues); see also Nat’l Org. for the Reform of Marijuana Laws v. Mullen, 828 F.2d 536, 542 (9th Cir.1987) (<HOLDING>); 9C Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and

A: holding that court can consider inadmissible evidence in the context of a motion for preliminary injunction
B: holding that the prospect of noncompliance with a preliminary injunction is an exceptional condition that justifies reference to a master
C: holding that when the district court applies the wrong preliminary injunction standard this court may review the record to determine whether the injunction is justified
D: recognizing the inappropriateness of a preliminary injunction where credibility determinations must be made but granting a preliminary injunction because the legal and factual issues have been sufficiently illuminated
B.