With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Carr v. Gen. Motors Corp., 425 Mich. 313, 389 N.W.2d 686, 689 (1986) (“The Legislature ... has mandated, not just once, but many times throughout the [PWDCRA], that the only [disabilities] covered by the act, for purposes of employment, are those unrelated to ability to perform the duties of the position.”). Consistent with this qualification, the PWDCRA does not protect a plaintiff who, “on the date of [her] discharge is unable to perform the requirements of [her] job because of a disability” even if the plaintiff “would have regained the capacity to do the work within a reasonable time.” Lamoria v. Health Care & Ret. Corp., 233 Mich. App. 560, 593 N.W.2d 699, 701 (1999) (per curiam); see also Ashworth v. Jefferson Screw Prods., Inc., 176 Mich.App. 737, 440 N.W.2d 101, 102-04 (1989) (<HOLDING>). In this case, Maat was unable to perform the

A: holding that injured employee failed to state a claim under pwdcra even though he informed his employer that he could return to work in two months
B: holding as a matter of law that employer could not reasonably foresee employees boyfriends actions in shooting her even though employee had informed employer two days earlier that he posed a threat
C: holding injured employee who asked his employer for medical assistance and employer refused and employee then went to physician of his own choice employee could recover medical benefits
D: holding that plaintiff could not show that he was disabled because he conceded that he could do his job despite his impairment
A.