With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". workers’ compensation awards whether by agreement or adjudication are final unless the Department reserves jurisdiction.” Id. ¶ 9, 575 N.W.2d at 229 (citations omitted). Further, we noted that “we have recognized in various circumstances an abiding exception to the general rule of finality.... As early as 1921 this Court held that besides fraud and misrepresentation, ‘equitable grounds’ may be sufficient to set aside a release.” Id. ¶ 10, 575 N.W.2d at 229. [¶ 17.] St. Paul’s reliance on Sopko is misplaced. A review of Sopko and the cases cited therein, reveal that they all dealt with the setting aside of a release based upon foreseeability of future injuries; that is not the question at issue we are facing in this case. See Mills v. Spink Elec. Coop., 442 N.W.2d 243, 245-46 (S.D.1989) (<HOLDING>); Novak v. C.J. Grossenburg & Son, 89 S.D. 308,

A: holding that trial counsel was not ineffective when he failed to introduce defendants prior consistent statement statement was not admissible because it was made after defendant had been arrested clearly not a time when the effect of the statement could not have been foreseen
B: holding the alj does not have to specifically refer to every piece of evidence so long as the decision is not a broad rejection that is insufficient to permit a court to conclude that the alj considered the claimants medical condition as a whole
C: holding the waiver ineffective because claimants medical condition could not have been anticipated or  foreseen at the time he executed the settlement
D: holding that the plaintiff filed suit within the statute of limitations even though he could not prove the time at which he mailed his petition
C.