With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". matter jurisdiction was lacking. The deputy dismissed the petition. Allen filed an administrative appeal. His appeal was consolidated with Annett Holdings’s earlier appeal from the original arbitration decision. In a final decision, the workers’ compensation commissioner concluded subject matter jurisdiction attached under Iowa Code section 85.71. Proceeding to the merits, the commissioner affirmed the arbitration decision in favor of Allen. On judicial review, the district court affirmed the commissioner. Annett Holdings appeals. II. Standards of Review The Iowa Supreme Court has stated we must review the commissioner’s interpretation of Iowa Code section 85.71 under the “erroneous” standard of Iowa Code section 17A.19(10)(c). Mycogen Seeds v. Sands, 686 N.W.2d 457, 464 (Iowa 2004) (<HOLDING>). Review of the commissioner’s application of

A: holding that determining what care is reasonable under iowa code section 8527 is a question of fact
B: holding that the coemployee immunity provision in workers compensation law was constitutional
C: holding interpretation of workers compensation statutes not clearly vested by a provision of law in the discretion of the agency triggering review under iowa code section 17a1910c
D: holding that claims for the breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing against workers compensation insurance carrier did not  arise under the state workers compensation statutes but are at most related to those statutes and thus do not come within the ambit of the nonremovability provision of  1445c good faith and fair dealing claims were created by texas common law not by the compensation statute
C.