With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". appears to have relied almost exclusively on federal cases interpreting Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure — and denying class certification — in drug or medical device actions. As we made clear in Syllabus Point 3 of Brooks v. Isinghood, 213 W.Va. 675, 584 S.E.2d 531 (2003), “[a] federal case interpreting a federal counterpart to a West Virginia rule of procedure may be persuasive, but it is not binding or controlling.” Our reasoning for this rule is to avoid having our legal analysis of our Rules “amount to nothing more than Pavlovian responses to federal decisional law.” 213 W.Va. at 675, 584 S.E.2d at 531, (quoting Stone v. St. Joseph’s Hosp. of Parkersburg, 208 W.Va. 91, 112, 538 S.E.2d 389, 410 (2000) (McGraw, J., concurring, in part, and dissenting, in part) (<HOLDING>)). The plaintiffs are also seeking a writ of

A: holding that west virginia disability discrimination law is not mechanically tied to federal disability discrimination jurisprudence
B: holding disability discrimination claim barred
C: holding that regarded as claim was reasonably related to claim of discrimination on the basis of disability
D: holding disability determination is made at time of alleged discrimination not later when remedial measures are used to correct disability
A.