With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Farm sought to refute the Rigsbys’ allegations of fraud by arguing that water was in fact the cause of the damage to the McIntosh home. Dr. Sin-no’s wracking theory countered that defense by explaining how wind actually would have caused the damage first. The wracking theory was part of the proof by which the Rigsbys convinced the jury of the predicate fact that wind caused the damage to the McIntosh home. See Rockwell, 549 U.S. at 475, 127 S.Ct. 1397 (“[A] qui tam relator’s misunderstanding of why a concealed defect occurred would normally be immaterial.... ”); Sylvia, Fraud Against the Government § 11:63. In any event, the wracking theory was consistent with the allegations of fraud the Rigsbys presented in their complaint and final pretrial ord 27 F.3d 439, 440, 443 (5th Cir.2008) (<HOLDING>); Fed. Recovery Servs., Inc. v. United States,

A: holding that trial court erred in excluding from evidence the application for social security benefits that the plaintiff made eight months prior to the accident at issue in which he described in detail his inability to work which was probative in establishing the plaintiffs condition prior to the accident and stating that since the plaintiff was denied social security benefits  there was no collateral source
B: holding that relator was not an original source where he was a governmentwaste opponent who sought to infiltrate a school district to root out retiring teachers alleged social security fraud
C: holding that a social security disability determination is a legal proceeding
D: holding a social security number is not private
B.