With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Prac. & Rem Code § 103.051(e). To allow Blair to seek mandamus review of the Comptroller’s substantive decision without first filing an application to cure and invoking the Comptroller’s duty to redetermine his eligibility would render the statute’s re-determination process optional for claimants (though not for the Comptroller), contrary to the statute’s mandatory language with respect to both the Comptroller’s actions and the claimant’s actions. See id. § 103.051(a)-(d). And if substantive review of the correctness of the Comptroller’s eligibility determination is available at any stage of the compensation process, the language in subsection (e) that grants permission for a mandamus action “[i]f the comptroller denies a claim after the claima ilkins, 47 S.W.3d 486, 492 (Tex.2001) (<HOLDING>). In Edwards Aquifer, we observed: We have said

A: holding that use of must in texas seed arbitration act meant that the purchaser must submit the claim to arbitration as provided by this chapter as a prereqidsite to the exercise of the purchasers right to maintain a legal action against the labeler
B: holding that once the party seeking to compel arbitration establishes the existence of an arbitration agreement and that the claims raised fall within the scope of that agreement the trial court must compel arbitration
C: holding that where an arbitration agreement between an employer and employee does not specifically provide for the handling of arbitration costs california courts should interpret the arbitration agreement  as providing  that the employer must bear the arbitration forum costs
D: holding that the role of the courts is limited to ascertaining whether there exists one of the specific grounds for the vacation of an award as provided in  10 of the arbitration act and that the court should not review the arbitration proceeding for errors of law or fact
A.