With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". available — beginning on January 4, 2011. Moreover, he noted that Courville had failed to exercise due diligence in seeking to obtain that employment. Additionally, while the ALJ acknowledged the conflicting medical opinions of the physicians who had evaluated Cour-ville, he also noted that, in certain circumstances, the opinion of a treating physician may be entitled to greater weight than the opinion of a non-treating physician. See Black & Decker Disability Plan v. Nord, 538 U.S. 822, 830 n. 3, 123 S.Ct. 1965, 155 L.Ed.2d 1034 (2003). Thus, he found that Courville had established a prima facie entitlement to the medical treatment recommended by his treating physician Dr. Sledge — including the surgery. See Turner v. Chesapeake & Potomac Tel. Co., 16 BRBS 255, 257-58 (1984) (<HOLDING>). Finally, he concluded that, based on the

A: holding that the burden of establishing prima facie case of discriminatory treatment may be satisfied by minimal showing
B: holding that a claimant establishes a prima facie case for compensable medical treatment where a qualified physician indicates treatment was necessary for a workrelated condition
C: holding the procedural right to request a onetime change of physician during the course of treatment does not attach until claimant actually begins treatment with the initially authorized physician
D: holding that in title vii disparate treatment case in order for a plaintiff to establish a prima facie case the plaintiff must proffer evidence among other things that she performed her job according to her employers legitimate expectations if the plaintiff establishes the prima facie case the presumption shifts the burden to the employer to produce a legitimate nondiseriminatory reason for its actions
B.