With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". § 65B.51, subd. 1 (2000). Therefore, we reverse the district court’s grant of the motion for a determination of collateral source benefits and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Reversed and remanded. * Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, serving by appointment pursuant to Minn. Const, art. VI § 10. 1 . The Minnesota Court of Appeals has interpreted the phrase "the date of the entry of the verdict” to mean the date of the entry of judgment. Wertish v. Salvhus, 555 N.W.2d 26, 28 (Minn.App.1997), rev’d on other grounds mem., 558 N.W.2d 258 (Minn.1997). 2 . A nonpublished case issued by this court in 1996 directly addressed the issue we must decide here. See Kissoondath v. Ammerman, No. C0-95-1346, 1995 WL 756840, at *5-*6 (Minn.App. Dec.26, 1995) (<HOLDING>), review granted (Minn. Feb. 12, 1996) and

A: holding that the limitation act does not apply to claims brought under the clean water act
B: holding that  3582 proceeding is criminal in nature and tenday appeal period applies
C: holding that tenday deadline applies to motions for a reduction in a verdict brought under the nofault act
D: holding that the limitation act does not apply to claims brought under the oil pollution act
C.