With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". order, Deputy Commissioner Phillips did not intend to provide Ammons with TTD benefits in addition to full salary when she entered the January Award. Indeed, as noted by Deputy Commissioner Phillips in the July Award, “double recovery is not contemplated by [the Workers’ Compensation Act].” To “clarify” the January Award “so that there was no confusion between the parties regarding benefits[,]” Deputy Commissioner Phillips amended the January Award on her own motion. Rather than attempting to provide relief from some erroneous finding or conclusion, as Ammons suggests, the amendment to the January Award properly sought to “clarify” Deputy Commissioner Phillips’ intentions regarding the benefits awarded. Cf. Alston v. Fed. Express Corp., N.C. App. -, -, 684 S.E.2d 705, 707 (2009) (<HOLDING>). Because the amendment of the January Award

A: holding that third party seeking to be reimbursed for costs incurred in responding to discovery request had standing to appeal because its interests were directly represented by its own counsel in the trial court it was effectively bound by the trial courts final order of dismissal the other party would have had the right to appeal the trial courts ruling if it had granted the request for reimbursement and the third party had no other legal remedy to contest the trial courts denial of its request
B: holding that in a situation where the parties could not agree on how to interpret the trial courts order pursuant to rule 60b6s grand reservoir of equitable power the trial court had jurisdiction to revisit its order so that its intentions could be made clear
C: holding that the trial court had no jurisdiction to modify its final order more than 30 days after its final judgment
D: holding that where no discovery order was violated sanctions could not imposed pursuant to rule 37 but nevertheless upholding the sanction order under the courts inherent power
B.