With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". A state court’s decision whether to recognize and enforce an employer’s cause of action for reimbursement, which is ere- ated by statute in another state, is an issue of conflict of laws rather than subject matter jurisdiction. See Hoffman v. Henderson, 355 N.W.2d 322, 324 (Minn.Ct.App.), pet. for review denied, (Minn. Dec. 20, 1984), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 105 S.Ct. 2326, 85 L.Ed.2d 844 (1985) (applying Alaska law to govern attorney-client fee agreement pertaining to an Alaska worker’s compensation action); Shelby Mutual Insurance Co. v. Girard Steel Supply Co., 224 F.Supp. 690, 695 (D.Minn.1963) (declining to enforce in Minnesota a Wisconsin employer’s right to reimbursement under Wisconsin law); cf. Barry v. Baker Electric Cooperative, Inc., 354 N.W.2d 666, 668-73 (N.D.1984) (<HOLDING>). See also Hile v. Liberty Mutual Insurance

A: holding that injured employee has right to settle with thirdparty tortfeasor claims not covered by minnesota workers compensation act
B: holding that contribution will lie where no statute precludes recovery from the joint tortfeasor against whom contribution is sought
C: holding north dakota law which precludes a negligent employer from being liable for contribution applicable as against minnesota law which permits limited contribution liability even thought the injure employee received benefits under the minnesota workers compensation act
D: recognizing a right to contribution
C.