With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". compensation court imposed this consequence by taking into account Martinez’ prior lifting restriction to reduce his current loss of earning capacity despite the fact that no evidence supports a finding that Martinez’ prior injury was in fact a previously compensated one that caused permanent partial disability and a loss of earning capacity. In fact, it is quite likely that Martinez was not compensated for a prior loss of earning capacity, because Martinez’ prior injury, to his shoulder, would be a scheduled member injury under Nebraska’s workers’ compensation statutes. Any loss of earning capacity sustained from a permanent partial disability is irrelevant for the purpose of compensating scheduled member injuries. See Rodriguez v. Monfort, Inc., 262 Neb. 800, 635 N.W.2d 439 (2001) (<HOLDING>). The compensation court apportioned Martinez’

A: holding that because claimants injuries were scheduled member injuries and not injury to his body as a whole any loss of earning capacity claimant may have sustained was irrelevant
B: holding um policy provider was the proper source of loss benefits for injuries sustained when claimants car was struck while he was seated in his car with his left foot still on the ground
C: holding first that injuries sustained during contact sports were foreseeable then deciding that public policy insulated the defendant from liability for those injuries
D: holding that liability insurance covered the injuries sustained when claimant exited car and was struck by a live wire since the claimant was still occupying the vehicle
A.