With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Wahl’s testimony, the PDJ had “proper grounds” to reconsider his earlier finding that the IME was unreliable. Broyles, 695 P.2d at 1144. In the end, however, Dr. Wahl’s expert report was not the principal grounds for the PDJ’s decision to transfer Bass to disability inactive status. For the reasons explained below, we believe that the PDJ’s order can be affirmed solely on the basis of his “adverse finding” entered against Bass because of her repeated failure to comply with the second IME process. C. When ordering the second IME, the PDJ made clear to Bass that her refusal to cooperate with Drs. Miller and Post would result in an adverse inference of disability. The PDJ was well within his discretion when he imposed this sanction. See People v. Milton, 732 P.2d 1199, 1207 (Colo.1987) (<HOLDING>); KN Energy, Inc. v. Great W. Sugar Co., 698

A: holding under third circuit law that denial of rule 11 sanctions is reviewed for abuse of discretion
B: holding that denial of discovery in habeas proceedings is reviewed for abuse of discretion
C: holding that the imposition of sanctions is reviewed for abuse of discretion
D: holding that the dismissal of a frivolous action reviewed for abuse of discretion
C.