With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". at 320 ("[T]he Commission is not a party to proceedings before itself.”). 37 . This Court has stated that “persons performing adjudicatory functions have no cognizable personal interest before a higher tribunal in seeking to have their rulings sustained.” Brooks v. Johnson, 560 A.2d 1001, 1004 (Del.1989) (citing Wilmington Trust Co. v. Barron, 470 A.2d 257, 261-62 (Del.1983)). The same principle applies here, and weighs against granting standing to a subordinate administrative body when its ruling is overturned on appeal. 38 . Ropp v. King, 2007 WL 2198771, at *5 (Del. Ch. July 25, 2007). 39 . 2 Am.Jur.2d Administrative Law, § 416. 40 . 73 A C.J.S. Public Administrative Law and Procedure, § 409. 41 . See, e.g., Dir., Office of Workers' Comp. Programs, 514 U.S. at 129, 115 S.Ct. 1278 (<HOLDING>); Nat'l Ass'n of Sec. Dealers, Inc. v. SEC, 431

A: holding that members of congress lacked standing to challenge the constitutionality of the line item veto act
B: holding that the director of the office of workers compensation programs in the us dept of labor lacked standing to challenge a decision by the benefits review board and finding that when an agency in its governmental capacity is meant to have standing congress says so emphasis in original
C: holding that plaintiffs lacked standing to sue
D: recognizing that a federal court may not review a challenge to a benefits determination of the office of workers compensation programs in the department of labor
B.