With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". to send a copy of this order to counsel for Plaintiff and counsel for Defendant. It is so ORDERED. 1 . Congressional intent does not aid analysis of the Jones Act. Unlike the Death on the High Seas Act (“DOHSA"), 46 U.S.C.A.App. §§ 761-768 (West 1975), which limits damages to pecuniary losses, 46 U.S.C.A.App. § 762 (West 1975), the Jones Act does not limit damages to any particular form, Miles, 498 U.S. at 32, 111 S.Ct. at 325-26; see also Mobil Oil Corp. v. Higginbotham, 436 U.S. 618, 625, 98 S.Ct. 2010, 2015, 56 L.Ed.2d 581 (1978) (“There is a basic difference between filling a gap left by Congress' silence and rewriting rules that Congress has affirmatively and specifically enacted.”). 2 . The Supreme Court voiced the same concern in earlier maritime cases n. 3 (E.D.Va.1993) (<HOLDING>). 4 . One argument against recovery of punitive

A: holding that punitive damages are recoverable in a claim for retaliation under the flsa
B: holding punitive damages unavailable for survival claims under general maritime law
C: holding punitive damages not recoverable under 2715
D: holding punitive damages not recoverable for retaliatory discharge claim under general maritime law
D.