With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". and filed an opinion on January 20, 1994, in which he ruled that, in light of claimant’s inconsistent reports of his accident to doctors, he failed to prove an injury by accident. The commission reversed the deputy commissioner’s ruling and awarded claimant benefits beginning November 17,1992. The commission further stated that it could not rely on history relayed by a claimant to determine how an accident occurred. II. CONSIDERATION OF MEDICAL HISTORIES As the Supreme Court of Virginia has stated, “injuries resulting from repetitive trauma ... as well as injuries sustained at an unknown time, are not ‘injuries by accident’ within the meaning of Code § 65.1-7.” Morris v. Morris, 238 Va. 578, 589, 385 S.E.2d 858, 865 (1989) (emphasis added). In this 9, 434 S.E.2d 904, 907 (1993) (<HOLDING>); Baker v. Babcock & Wilcox Co., 11 Va.App.

A: holding that rules of evidence do not permit an expert to give opinion or state legal conclusions regarding a question of law
B: recognizing that commissions rules permit hearsay evidence
C: recognizing privilege under federal rules
D: holding that because the rules of evidence including the rule against hearsay do not apply to sentencing hearings the district court did not err in relying on hearsay in ordering restitution
B.